Recently, the AMA investigated one of its continuing medical education courses that was rife with gender ideology and unscientific endorsements of pediatric gender transitions, finding it did not comply with accreditation standards. But the AMA’s handling of the matter reveals the organization is still on board with gender activism.
Here’s the timeline:
In December, Do No Harm Medical Director Kurt Miceli, MD, submitted a complaint to the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) over a course on pediatric gender medicine produced by the American Medical Association (AMA) that is best described as promoting gender ideology.
The complaint explained that the course, titled “LGBTQ+ Patient-Centered Practices,” violates the ACCME’s standards, which require that all educational recommendations for patient care be grounded in current science, supported by clinical reasoning, and presented in a fair and balanced manner.
As Do No Harm previously reported:
- The course refused to acknowledge the fact that the overall quality of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors is very low.
- It ignored the numerous evidence reviews that have shown sex-denying medical interventions to be an unsupported means of addressing gender dysphoria in children.
- It failed to properly acknowledge the numerous and substantial risks of these procedures.
- And it even cited activist groups who seek to push gender ideology in the political realm.
Ultimately, the ACCME initiated an investigation and the AMA took the course down; the link to the course redirects to the AMA’s general CME webpage.
Then, in February of this year, the AMA Education Center sent out an email broadcasting the fact that the course did not meet the requisite accreditation standards.
Figure 1. A screenshot from an email sent by the AMA Education Center.
Here’s the relevant section:
After a recent review, we discovered the activity “LGBTQ+ Patient-Centered Practices” did not fully meet Standard 1 of the Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education, specifically subsection 4: “Although accredited continuing education is an appropriate place to discuss, debate, and explore new and evolving topics, these areas need to be clearly identified as such within the program and individual presentations. It is the responsibility of accredited providers to facilitate engagement with these topics without advocating for, or promoting, practices that are not, or not yet adequately based on current science, evidence, and clinical reasoning.”
At first blush, this seems encouraging.
One reading of this statement is that the AMA recognizes that its course was “advocating for” practices that are not based on current evidence.
But surely this conclusion was evident to any reviewer prior to the course’s publication. Why only now, after backlash against the course’s content, is the AMA deciding the course does not fully meet standards?
What’s more, the AMA email then directs members to sources that it describes as providing “comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines and recommendations regarding appropriate and safe approaches for the problems or symptoms presented during” the course.
In other words, these sources are what the AMA considers authoritative sources of information on pediatric gender medicine.
Of course, they are anything but.
The listed sources include the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and UpToDate.
The AAP simply has not produced comprehensive evidence-based guidelines on pediatric gender medicine at all.
Instead, it has issued a policy statement, which it reaffirmed in 2023, that it clarifies is “not a comprehensive review of clinical approaches and nuances to pediatric care for children and youth that identify as” transgender. That policy statement includes the claim that puberty blockers are “reversible” treatments for gender dysphoria, a claim that is outright false.
Moreover, the AAP has criticized recent efforts to actually review the evidence behind sex-denying interventions for minors, dismissing the Department of Health and Human Services’ recent evidence review as prioritizing “opinions over dispassionate reviews of evidence.” This is, of course, a complete inversion of the truth.
UpToDate, meanwhile, is a clinical resource that provides clinicians with comprehensive summaries and detailed health information on a broad array of medical topics.
One of its resources is co-authored by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a prominent advocate for and provider of so-called “gender-affirming care.” Reportedly, Olson-Kennedy had initially refused to publish the results of a multi-million dollar, federally-funded study which, according to The New York Times, had found that “puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements” in children.
UpToDate’s resources do not engage with the wealth of evidence on the harms of child sex change interventions and the corresponding lack of evidence supporting the procedures’ effectiveness.
What’s the takeaway from all of this?
It seems like the AMA is talking out of both sides of its mouth.
For one, that the AMA believes these sources are authoritative indicates that it still is failing to grapple with the reality that the weight of evidence does not support so-called “gender-affiriming care.”
And second, that the course was created at all, and that it took a complaint to cause serious evaluation of the course’s content, does not inspire confidence in the AMA’s attitude regarding sex-denying interventions for minors.
The AMA’s attempt to distance itself from the more excessive promotions of gender ideology in its course is notable, to be sure.
But much more is necessary.
Do No Harm Urges IRS To Investigate the American Medical Association Foundation’s Tax-Exempt Status
Medical Association, Press Release United States DEI American Medical Association Medical association Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffSALT LAKE CITY, UT; April 8, 2026 – This week, Do No Harm filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), urging an investigation into whether the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation should have its tax-exempt status revoked for operating racially discriminatory scholarships.
“Racially discriminatory scholarships are unlawful and morally wrong, to say nothing of the negative impact they have on public confidence in our medical system,” said Kurt Miceli, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Do No Harm. “Based on the evidence in our complaint, we believe the IRS should revoke the AMA Foundation’s tax-exempt status for operating a racially discriminatory program. The AMA’s obsession with identity politics is no secret, and it should be held accountable for allowing race to dictate applicants’ eligibility for valuable and lucrative learning opportunities. If the AMA Foundation wants to retain its federal tax advantage, it must open its scholarships to applicants of all races.”
The AMA Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the American Medical Association, funds and oversees the Physicians of Tomorrow Scholarship program, which provides lucrative scholarships to third-year medical students. Most scholarship awards include prizes of up to $10,000 along with national recognition and access to resources and support. However, as alleged in Do No Harm’s complaint, several of these scholarships explicitly discriminate based on race and violate established public policy and civil rights laws forbidding racial discrimination. Under Supreme Court precedent, having even one unlawful policy under 26 U.S.C § 501(c)(3), including a racially discriminatory policy, makes the entire organization ineligible for tax-exempt status.
Click here to read the IRS complaint.
Background:
The AMA Foundation’s Physicians of Tomorrow Scholarship is an umbrella program encompassing various discrete scholarships. However, several scholarships explicitly hinge eligibility on racial criteria, with two scholarships preferring certain racial minorities over other racial groups and one scholarship preferring certain white racial groups over others.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.
When Ideology Replaces Accuracy: The ATS’s Spirometry Shift
COMMENTARY DEI Medical association Commentary Michael Depietro, MDIn recent years, academic medical societies have increasingly issued recommendations and policy statements that seem motivated less by a commitment to scientific rigor and more by an adherence to fashionable ideologies.
The American Thoracic Society is unfortunately no exception to this trend. Its 2023 decision to abandon race‑adjusted reference equations for spirometry—long a straightforward physiological test—does not necessarily make the test more accurate, may not deliver better outcomes, and does not clearly improve certainty in a tool meant to elucidate lung mechanics. By prioritizing broad ideological narratives over data‑driven, objective measures, recent changes risk undermining the core purpose of this diagnostic test and ultimately fail to improve patient care, exchanging one set of uncertainties for another.
Spirometry measures the volume and flows produced after a forced exhalation from total lung capacity. Measurements include the Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1), Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) (maximal amount exhaled), and the FEV1/FVC ratio. In the right clinical setting spirometry helps distinguish obstructive from restrictive lung physiology. Whether a value is “normal” depends on reference equations from healthy populations. These equations have always adjusted for height, age, and sex. And for two decades, they also included race-based adjustments given datasets consistently showing average FEV1 and FVC values differing across populations. Ironically, this change was an effort to make the equations, which had originally been based on data from Caucasians, more inclusive by including data from multiple ethnic groups while also having some physiologic rationale by accounting for the smaller Cormic index (smaller thorax for a given standing height) seen in observational studies of individuals of African descent as well as others. This approach, while imperfect, was accepted for diagnosing abnormal physiology.
Flash forward to recent times. In 2023, the ATS moved to eliminate race-based adjustment from the reference equations. Thirty-three workshop participants—drawn from both the ATS Pulmonary Function Test Committee and the ATS Health Equity and Diversity Committee—met over the issue. Thereafter an official statement was produced explaining “why race and ethnicity should no longer be considered factors in interpreting the results of spirometry.” If this change had improved diagnostic precision, it would have been welcome.
From the outset, the ATS statement framed the prior race‑adjusted equations as products of “structural racism,” despite their intent to improve accuracy by incorporating data from multiple populations. More than 90% of workshop participants nevertheless endorsed adopting a race-neutral reference equation, citing non-clinical benefits such as affirming that “race and ethnicity are not biological variables.” At the same time, ATS issued a word of caution within its own statement, acknowledging uncertain effects and potential harms with the new approach. Indeed, the full clinical consequences of removing race from the reference equations remain unknown. What is certain is that this change will reclassify some black patients with previously “low‑normal” values as abnormal, and some white patients previously labeled abnormal as normal.
No doubt, clinicians will still interpret pulmonary function tests (PFTs) in context, but this shift introduces new opportunities for misclassification without evidence that diagnostic accuracy or patient outcomes will improve. A patient with exertional dyspnea, for example, may now appear to have obstructive disease when the true cause is something else, like cardiac disease for example. The ATS document itself warns of potential harm because of the race-neutral equation, including, but not limited to unnecessary workups, inappropriate disease labeling, insurance or occupational consequences, and altered surgical risk assessments.
The central issue is simple: the recent race-neutral recommendations do not clearly improve diagnostic accuracy and introduce a different set of uncertainties into a test whose purpose is to clarify physiology. The change appears driven less by data and more by ideology. It risks undermining the primary function of any diagnostic tool, that is, providing clinicians with the best, most accurate information so they can provide exceptional care to their patients. While an argument could be made for improving the original reference-equation approach—or even abandoning it all together in favor of alternatives like using patients as their own baseline—any change should be driven by data supporting improved clinical accuracy for individual patients regardless of race, and not a particular political agenda.
Dr. Michael Depietro is a pulmonologist and Do No Harm member.
Do No Harm Files Civil Rights Complaint Against Three Healthcare Providers’ Discriminatory Residency Programs
Uncategorized Florida, Michigan, Texas DEI Hospital System Press Release Do No Harm StaffSALT LAKE CITY, UT; March 31, 2026 – This week, Do No Harm filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) alleging that Corewell Health, Texas Tech University (Texas Tech), and HCA Healthcare discriminate on the basis of national origin, favoring foreign-trained physicians in their internal medicine residency programs over American-trained doctors.
Since these institutions receive federal funding, Do No Harm’s complaint alleges the residency programs violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which prohibit national origin discrimination in “any health program or activity.”
“National origin discrimination is both unlawful and inconsistent with the broader American commitment to equal treatment,” said Kurt Miceli, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Do No Harm. “When residency programs favor foreign trained physicians over American trained doctors, they effectively prevent qualified Americans from accessing valuable, competitive, and prestigious learning opportunities. It is deeply concerning that these programs appear to be discriminating against graduates of U.S. medical schools. Medical institutions and their directors should be hiring residents based on their ability to deliver high quality patient care, not on national origin. We urge HHS to thoroughly investigate these programs and address this alarming display of foreign favoritism.”
Background:
Each of the internal medicine residency programs at Corewell Health, Texas Tech, and HCA Healthcare offers a valuable residency program in internal medicine.
However, all three programs exhibit a consistent pattern: each has excluded nearly all American-trained physicians from its residency; each has filled its cohorts almost exclusively with residents trained in a small set of foreign countries; and each is led by a director or directors who mirror the residents they choose—foreign-trained physicians educated in or near the small set of foreign countries from which these residencies fill their ranks.
Residency programs with such highly imbalanced hiring patterns warrant further scrutiny.
Read the complaint against Corewell Health, Texas Tech, and HCA Healthcare.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.
New Do No Harm Report Debunks AAMC’s Racial Concordance Narrative
COMMENTARY DEI Association of American Medical Colleges Press Release Do No Harm StaffSALT LAKE CITY, UT: March 31, 2026 – Today, medical watchdog Do No Harm released a new report debunking assertions by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) about alleged benefits of racial concordance in assessing and treating pain.
The report, “How the AAMC Fails to Read and Correctly Interpret the Research It Cites,” exposes the AAMC’s role in elevating activism over evidence within its amicus brief submitted in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case over race-based college admissions. The brief cites four unreliable studies to defend the discredited theory that racial concordance, in which patients are treated by doctors of the same race, improves health outcomes.
Yet, as Do No Harm’s report shows, not one of them actually supports the asserted benefit of racial concordance in the treatment of pain.
“Our report exposes the tactics employed by activist medical organizations to infuse racial discrimination throughout all of healthcare,” said Jay Greene, PhD, Director of Research at Do No Harm. “The country’s most prominent medical societies either didn’t read or purposely misrepresented the studies used to justify the debunked racial concordance myth. They failed in their responsibility to describe medical research accurately to the highest court in the land. This dereliction of their duty to honestly assess studies raises doubts about the scientific credibility of these organizations more broadly.”
Do No Harm has previously rebutted the general claim of racial concordance and, throughout the latest report, thoroughly addresses the AAMC’s failure to describe research results accurately.
Click here to read the full report.
Background:
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.
Do No Harm Files Lawsuit Challenging Discriminatory Federal Health Scholarship Program
COMMENTARY Hawaii DEI Federal government Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffSALT LAKE CITY, UT; March 30, 2026 – Today, Do No Harm filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program (“the Program”) administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
“In the last year, the Department of Health and Human Services has made historic strides toward ending racial bias in medicine and restoring meritocracy,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman at Do No Harm. “That this program still exists even after the efforts by this administration to course correct proves just how widespread institutional race discrimination has become. Our complaint challenging the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program is aimed at ensuring well-deserving applicants can qualify to compete for the financial relief the scholarship provides. The criteria in question should be revised so that the program will align with HHS goals to restore excellence and merit in healthcare.”
Read the full complaint here.
Background:
The Program is administered by HHS and provides generous financial aid, including assistance for tuition, living expenses and other costs, for students pursuing certain healthcare careers. In exchange, scholarship recipients agree to provide healthcare services in Hawaii for a couple of years after graduation.
However, to be eligible, applicants must be “Native Hawaiians,” a requirement that is enshrined into federal law. The Program defines Native Hawaiian as a U.S. citizen who is “a descendant of the aboriginal people, who prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the state of Hawaii.”
This eligibility barrier is racial discrimination.
Do No Harm represents several of its members in this lawsuit, who, but for their race, would be qualified and competitive applicants. These courageous members are taking a stand because they believe that well-deserving students shouldn’t be denied life-changing opportunities on the basis of race.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.
UCSF’s OBGYN Residency Program Embraces Disturbing Ideology
Uncategorized California DEI University of California San Francisco Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffIn simpler times, it would be a safe assumption that the primary purpose of a residency program is to train physicians to provide the best possible medical care.
Clinical excellence should be assumed to be the goal of any medical education program, especially in obstetrics and gynecology programs in which physicians are learning to care for mothers and their babies.
But at the University of California, San Francisco’s Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, that assumption would be incorrect.
According to the program’s residency applicant handbook for the 2025-2026 academic year, it seems like clinical excellence takes a back seat to radical ideology.
Figure 1. A screenshot of the UCSF OBGYN residency program’s mission statement.
Indeed, in the very first bullet point of the program’s mission statement, UCSF commits to “Centering health equity, anti-racism, and anti-oppression in clinical care and in education, particularly for Black and Indigenous individuals, people of color, trans and nonbinary individuals, and immigrant populations.”
In other words, the residency program will use radical, discriminatory racial politics as the prism through which it teaches crucial medical care.
How disturbing this is doesn’t need to be pointed out. It is absolutely imperative that mothers and babies get the best care possible, regardless of race; their physicians should not be viewing them as members of a racial group, but as individual patients.
But that’s not all.
The handbook also includes the school’s “Anti-Racism Commitment.”
Figure 2. A Screenshot of the UCSF OBGYN program’s “Anti-Racism Commitment.”
“We pledge that our actions will purposefully and intentionally advance anti-racist efforts,” the commitment reads. “We pledge to continue educating ourselves both individually and collectively on anti-racism and the tangible ways we can effectively contribute to the dismantling of systemic racism and anti-Blackness.”
It’s essential to point out what “anti-racist efforts” actually involve. Though it’s not clear what UCSF intends, the phrase is commonly invoked by proponents of racial discrimination.
In fact, the most prolific advocate of anti-racism, Ibram X. Kendi, describes the ideology as follows: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
How, exactly, will racial discrimination play out in the OBGYN context?
It’s hard to imagine something more ghoulish than physicians trained to prioritize the health of certain racial groups, especially when these physicians are responsible for the health of our most vulnerable.
Beyond the handbook, in December 2025, UCSF’s OBGYN department hosted a grand rounds session titled “Letting Die: Black Maternal and Infant Deaths after Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard” and hosted by Dr. Khiara Bridges, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.
The session focused on ways in which providers could practice “racially concordant” maternal care in the wake of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Supreme Court decision that struck down race-conscious admissions.
Racial concordance refers to the dynamic in which patients are treated by healthcare professionals of the same race. The notion that this dynamic improves health outcomes is unsupported by the weight of the evidence, as Do No Harm has shown.
Figure 3. A screenshot of a presentation on racially concordant maternal care hosted by the UCSF OBGYN department.
To support her claim that racially concordant maternal care improves health outcomes, Bridges invoked a long-debunked study claiming that the survival rate of black infants improves when treated by black physicians. However, the researchers behind the study failed to control for the effect of very low birth weight on infant mortality.
When researchers at the Manhattan Institute attempted to replicate the study with the same data, while applying a control for very low birth weight, they found the racial concordance effect disappeared.
So not only is the UCSF OBGYN program hopelessly infatuated with DEI, but it is promoting bad science and debunked medical concepts to justify this radical ideology.
Where to begin with reforming this program?
It’s clear that the UCSF needs to have a long, hard look at what kind of institution it wants to be: one that promotes healing and clinical excellence, or one that is merely a vehicle for an insidious and harmful brand of identity politics.
DEI Mandates No More: The LCME Quietly Removes ‘Bias’ and ‘Equity’ Requirements
COMMENTARY United States DEI Liaison Committee on Medical Education accrediting organization Commentary Do No Harm StaffEarlier this month, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the main accrediting body for allopathic medical schools, quietly updated its 2027-2028 standards.
The change, unannounced and easy to miss, is enormously consequential: the LCME removed the requirement that medical schools inject DEI-oriented content into their curricula.
Previously, the standards required schools to provide “opportunities for medical students to learn to recognize and appropriately address biases in themselves, in others, and in the health care delivery process,” and to include in their curricula “approaches to reduce health care inequities.”
The new standards, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, omit this DEI language entirely.
This is a massive, massive victory for medical education.
With this change, medical schools will no longer be forced to indoctrinate students into a divisive, discriminatory ideology.
And what’s more, they will no longer have the fig leaf of LCME mandates to justify even more radical DEI-infested curriculum content.
The change is the LCME’s second major update to its standards following President Trump’s executive order directly targeting accreditors for imposing divisive and discriminatory policies on higher education; that executive order mentioned the LCME by name.
In May 2025, the LCME removed Standard 3.3, which forced medical schools to have in place “programs and/or partnerships” aimed at achieving diversity, effectively encouraging racial discrimination.
Additionally, the changes follow Do No Harm’s report exposing accreditors for injecting DEI into medical schools and healthcare education programs through accreditation standards.
Since our report, the vast majority of medical and healthcare education accreditors have ditched or suspended their DEI mandates.
New Report Exposes Radical Activism and Bias of the American Nurses Association
Uncategorized United States DEI Nursing organization Press Release Do No Harm StaffSALT LAKE CITY, UT; March 24, 2026 – Today, medical watchdog Do No Harm released a new report entitled “Activism, Not Advocacy: The Radical Transformation of the American Nurses Association.”
The report exposes a concerning shift within the American Nurses Association (ANA) from supporting nurses’ professional growth to pushing a radical political agenda. The ANA has imbued every facet of the organization with the false idea that the nursing profession is and always has been “systemically racist.”
“The ANA’s descent into extremism is alarming and has contributed to the indoctrination of our nation’s most important frontline workers,” said Kurt Miceli, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Do No Harm. “Instead of working to train and support hardworking nurses, the ANA has dedicated time and resources to promoting the ideas of radical activists. Nursing, at its core, is a profession that seeks to serve patients with compassion and foster healing. America’s nurses should have an organization that is focused on supporting their training and development as world-class healthcare providers, not creating a training ground for foot soldiers in a political battle.”
Click here to read the report.
The report highlights:
Do No Harm explains how a small group of activists have steered the ANA away from its original mission. The report urges nurses to reclaim their organization and profession from radicals.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.
Do No Harm Submits Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Take Up Case and Reject Any First Amendment Right to Racially Discriminate
COMMENTARY New Jersey DEI accrediting organization, Federal government Commentary Judicial Do No Harm StaffToday, Do No Harm, Students for Fair Admissions, and the American Alliance for Equal Rights filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of a lawsuit challenging the New Jersey State Bar Association’s discriminatory set asides. The case raises an important issue: whether the First Amendment creates a general right to racially discriminate.
The brief urges the Court to grant certiorari in Saadeh v. New Jersey State Bar Association, a case concerning the New Jersey State Bar Association’s racial preference system employed when filling board seats. The bar association, claiming that such preferences are necessary for it to advocate its DEI goals, reserves these seats for lawyers who are “diverse” or from “underrepresented” groups, including, “Black/African American,” “Hispanic/Latino/a/x,” “Asian/Pacific American,” “LGBTQ+,” and “women.”
In October 2021, Rajeh Saadeh, the plaintiff and petitioner in the case, sued the bar association over this quota system, arguing that it violates New Jersey’s antidiscrimination laws.
Though the trial court ruled that the bar association’s quotas were illegal under state law, New Jersey’s appellate court reversed that decision based solely on the First Amendment. According to the state appellate court, forcing the bar association to end such racial preferences would violate the association’s First Amendment rights because it would “significantly burden the expression of its views”—namely the bar association’s “ability to advocate the value of diversity and inclusivity.”
In other words, the court accepted the theory that New Jersey’s bar association had a First Amendment right to racially discriminate. The New Jersey Supreme Court then denied Saadeh’s petition for certiorari.
Do No Harm’s brief explains why this theory is bogus and why it is imperative for the United States Supreme Court to take up this case.
First, the brief highlights numerous examples of cases, including Do No Harm cases, in which defendants accused of illegal racial discrimination have attempted to mount a constitutional Free Speech defense, demonstrating a growing need for the Court to make clear that there is no First Amendment right to racially discriminate.
Then, the brief explains why the logic of a purported First Amendment right to racially discriminate falls apart. Essentially, there is a difference between expressing beliefs and practicing them. The First Amendment protects expression; but antidiscrimination laws forbid racial exclusion and discriminatory practices.
As the brief further explains: “The Free Speech Clause theory” recognized by the New Jersey appellate court and advanced in rising numbers of cases across the country is “not merely novel” but “also incompatible with decades of [Supreme] Court[] precedent and the decisions of most other courts.” In addition, the theory has “no logical stopping point” given that “every entity that discriminates could claim the same ‘expressive’ interest in the bare act of discrimination.”
Do No Harm urges the Court to grant certiorari.
As defendants scramble to keep unlawful DEI policies in play, many now regularly seek to evade racial nondiscrimination laws and Supreme Court precedent through a purported First Amendment right to discriminate as their “expression.” It is imperative that the Court firmly decide the obvious: DEI activists cannot rely on the First Amendment to racially discriminate.
Do No Harm Proposes CDC Adopt New Medical Diagnosis Codes for Gender Transition and Detransition
Press Release United States Gender Ideology Federal government Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH; March 17, 2026 – Today, Kurt Miceli, MD, Do No Harm’s Chief Medical Officer, will present to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about the need for new medical diagnosis codes (known as ICD-10 codes) for gender transition and detransition.
“Refining the medical diagnosis codes for gender transition and detransition is urgently needed. Currently, the lack of a specific code for detransition makes these individuals effectively invisible to the healthcare system, obscuring their medical needs and limiting real-world research, follow‑up care, and outcome monitoring that responsible practice requires,” said Kurt Miceli, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Do No Harm. “The new diagnosis codes we’re proposing would help generate valuable research data, support evidence-based health standards, and enhance patient care. We commend the CDC for taking important steps toward this goal by accepting for October implementation the code we introduced at the last ICD-10 meeting: gender identity disorder in remission, or desistance. We encourage the agency to adopt our newly proposed codes so that we can further improve the quality of research and care for those suffering from gender dysphoria.”
The CDC meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. ET. Click here for the agenda and livestream.
Why new codes are needed:
Do No Harm’s proposed codes aim to more precisely capture the various aspects of gender transition, distinguish those aspects from disorders of sex development, and make sure detransitioners are fully visible to the healthcare system.
These codes include:
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.
A Woke Gamble in Medicine?
COMMENTARY DEI Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffAcademic Medicine, the flagship journal of Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recently published an article advocating for a lottery-based residency match system to replace the current match system that, in the authors’ words, emphasize “a narrow set of comparative achievements—standardized test performance, publication counts, and honor society memberships.”
The article, written by several authors including the Associate Dean for Admissions at Stanford University School of Medicine, starts out with the premise that this more merit-oriented approach is actually harmful to medical education.
Instead, the authors argue that residency programs should adopt a “modified lottery” system in which applicants who are deemed “qualified” by their medical schools are assigned, through an algorithm, to interview with certain residency programs.
The crux of the argument is as follows:
“We argue that the current residency selection process must be upended to achieve several important aims: facilitating the implementation of [competency-based medical education], promoting a growth mindset among students, eliminating the use of metrics that foster harmful bias, ensuring optimal preparation for patient care, and improving equality within the selection process.”
Notice the sections on “bias” and “equality.”
And here’s the kicker: the authors argue that this process should include diversity objectives so that residency programs can achieve their DEI goals.
“Inclusion of diversity-related programmatic outcomes in the modified lottery process could help align applicants and programs with similar interests in caring for diverse patient populations, advancing health equity, or promoting inclusive practices,” the authors write.
To be clear, it is not the lottery itself that is the issue. Indeed, Do No Harm’s founder Dr. Stanley Goldfarb explained in National Review how, in the context of medical school admissions, instituting a lottery system past a certain threshold of academic achievement would prevent racial preferences in admissions while ensuring that medical schools preserve merit.
Instead, it is the article’s premise that more merit-oriented methods of selection should be devalued, and that the lottery process should be used to achieve DEI goals, that is disturbing. It’s a system in which “good enough” replaces “the best” for selecting into the most competitive training programs.
The authors give the game away elsewhere in the paper, arguing that more achievement-oriented metrics of residency selection “confer demonstrable bias (e.g. racial, ethnic, gender, and/or socioeconomic), potentially limiting the entrance of applicants with identities considered underrepresented in medicine into residency positions.”
How, exactly, merit-based metrics of selection confer bias while consideration of diversity objectives does not is anyone’s guess.
Additionally, the article is remarkably light on details as to what counts as a qualified applicant, instead calling for widespread adoption of a standardized “programmatic assessment.”
“In order for a modified lottery for interviews to be successful, this would require UME institutions to agree upon a set of outcomes to determine qualification and develop rigorous programmatic assessment to ensure those outcomes are met,” the authors write.
But apparently the “standardized test performance, publication counts, and honor society memberships” are excluded from the qualification discussion? This doesn’t make much sense.
In short, the article’s proposal would indeed upend residency selection, but make it much less fair. Objective measures of academic excellence would be devalued, and non-academic considerations would be promoted.
We shouldn’t gamble on the future of medicine like this.
Detransitioners Are Righting Medicine’s Wrongs
COMMENTARY Gender Ideology Medical association Op-Ed Commentary Aida Cerundolo, MDLobotomies and pediatric gender interventions have a lot in common. Both treatments were developed to address forms of psychological distress, have resulted in patient harm, and sparked concerns surrounding informed consent from a vulnerable population.
But the medical community abandoned lobotomies without legal restrictions, while pediatric gender interventions are being wrestled away from “gender-affirming” clinicians by twenty-seven state bans, multiple federal executive orders and the threat of Medicare and Medicaid defunding.
Despite the similarities, the two interventions have one important difference: pediatric gender interventions are rooted in ideology while lobotomies were not. The medical establishment was able to self-regulate and stop performing lobotomies without legal prohibitions after an increasing number of patients suffered poor outcomes, likely because doctors were not ideologically invested in the procedures. Compelling clinicians to alter a practice motivated by deeply-held beliefs rather than objective evidence has proven to be difficult. But the adverse complications are becoming too obvious to ignore.
A growing population of patients harmed by pediatric gender interventions are redirecting medicine away from ideology and back to objective facts. Detransitioners who were deemed by their clinicians to be transgender and subsequently underwent irreversible procedures before coming to realize that their gender distress was due to something else are the truth serum restoring medical integrity. Legal prohibitions, restrictions in funding, and now a two million dollar judgement in favor of a harmed patient are the inevitable result of belief-directed medicine that failed to right itself.
Shaking clinicians out of their transgender fever dream has been challenging. Queer theory believers unquestioningly affirm children’s musings of gender nonconformity, sometimes leading to life-altering gender interventions. They assert gender is a social construct untethered to biological sex. Children who struggle with gender distress are treated as if they are expressing a distinct and authentic identity — despite its departure from biological reality — and one that must be affirmed without reservation.
This confident conclusion conflicts with standard clinical practice that requires an objective evaluation of a patient’s symptoms and, especially in children, a careful exploration of the psychosocial factors that often underlie gender distress. Yet, in many contemporary frameworks, questioning a child’s newly-declared gender identity is perceived as pathologizing gender nonconformity itself, and therefore discriminatory to those seeking to express an inner sense of self.
In 2023 the American Psychiatric Association’s publishing house released Gender-Affirming Psychiatric Care (GAPC), an exhaustive guide to gender nonconforming patients. This textbook recommends medical and surgical transition as appropriate treatment options for patients of all ages with gender distress, even when significant co-occurring conditions — such as autism, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and serious mental illness — are present.
According to GAPC, some gender-affirming clinicians believe an investigation of a patient’s reported gender distress that delays medical affirmation — which would be required for a comprehensive evaluation — is a form of gender-identity discrimination, and even conversion therapy.
Detransitioners who were subjected to irreversible medical interventions that damaged healthy organs and bodily functions are the unfortunate result of this detour away from objectivity.
This isn’t the first time patients have suffered from ideology infiltrating medicine. The eugenics movement is one such example that led to the coerced sterilization of as many as seventy thousand people. Eugenicists in the early twentieth century sought to improve the human race by limiting the reproduction of people deemed to be “feebleminded,” convincing even the U.S. Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who famously quipped in his opinion favoring the forced sterilization of twenty-one-year-old Carrie Buck, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Detransitioners injured by gender interventions are a reminder of how ideological capture of medical institutions can lead to harm rather than healing.
March 12 is Detransition Awareness Day — an opportunity for the medical community to acknowledge the dangers of ideologically-driven medicine and reaffirm a commitment to objective and compassionate care that limits preventable injury.
The AAMC Changes Course on ‘Cultural’ Competencies
COMMENTARY DEI Association of American Medical Colleges Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) is continuing to walk back some of its more overt references to diversity in its public materials. It’s a sign that the AAMC is moderating the outward manifestations of its long-historied DEI infatuation, even if it hasn’t given up the ideology wholesale just yet.
At some point last month, the AAMC updated the language used in its “Premed Competencies for Entering Medical Students.” These “competencies” refer to the traits and skills that incoming medical students should possess to succeed and become effective physicians.
An archived version of the article, dated February 1, 2026, included a competency titled “cultural humility,” which it defined as the skill in which one: “Seeks out and engages diverse and divergent perspectives with a desire to understand and willingness to adjust one’s mindset; understands a situation or idea from alternative viewpoints; reflects on one’s values, beliefs, and identities and how they may affect others; reflects on and addresses bias in oneself and others; and fosters a supportive environment that values inclusivity.”
Similarly, the page previously included the competency of “Cultural awareness”: “Appreciates how historical, sociocultural, political, and economic factors affect others’ interactions, behaviors, and well-being; values diversity; and demonstrates a desire to learn about different cultures, beliefs, and values.”
Now, “Cultural humility” is known as “Self-awareness,” and “Cultural awareness” has become “Understanding others.”
The definitions of the new competencies do not make direct references to diversity and related concepts.
Furthermore, the AAMC’s resource page on its PREview exam has changed as well.
As Do No Harm previously reported, one of the goals of the PREview exam is to promote “inclusivity” and “level the playing field” for applicants. The exam was also assessed by “experts” in DEI.
“In discussing the exam with our DEI constituents, the sentiment has always been that it would help level the playing field for applicants,” said David Acosta, MD, AAMC chief diversity and inclusion officer, in a 2022 statement.
Previously, the resource page contained the following language: “The PREview exam provides medical schools with a more complete view of each applicant by assessing skills such as resilience and adaptability, service orientation, ethical responsibility to self and others, empathy and compassion, cultural awareness, cultural humility, and teamwork and collaboration, among others.”
The current resource page, however, makes no mention of “cultural awareness” or “cultural humility.”
Of course, the PREview exam itself does not appear to have changed, but it is worth noting that the AAMC is trying to subtly rebrand its purpose after explicitly linking it to DEI just a few years ago.
And once again, if there is truly a change of heart in the AAMC leadership regarding DEI, we should expect the AAMC to publicly state this to be the case.
Until that point, we should remain skeptical.
Do No Harm Report Reveals Lack of Guardrails Preventing Minors from Obtaining Cross-Sex Hormones Online
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Press Release Do No Harm StaffSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH; March 10, 2026 – Today, medical watchdog Do No Harm released a report titled “The Lack of Barriers to Minors Ordering Cross-Sex Hormones Online,” exposing how online pharmacies may enable minors to access sex-denying interventions without a prescription or age verification.
The report also urges the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to further investigate and regulate online pharmacies selling hormones without requiring prescriptions.
Do No Harm’s report warns about several avenues – including online forums and gender transition websites – where minors can learn how to access and self-administer cross-sex hormones. The report stresses the dangers facing gender-confused children who seek cross-sex hormones from the internet.
Click here to read the report.
“Our report reveals how online pharmacies may enable minors to obtain cross-sex hormones with alarming ease,” said Kurt Miceli, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Do No Harm. “From websites listing online vendors across the globe to marketplaces for ‘homebrewed’ hormones, we found a multitude of troubling pathways that appear to bypass basic safeguards and regulatory oversight. Gender-confused kids should not be able to purchase potent, experimental medications with just a few simple clicks. These hormones carry significant risks, including effects that can be irreversible. We urge the FDA and other federal agencies to investigate any potential unlawful sellers and, where appropriate, for states to do the same when their laws are being violated. Protecting minors from unsafe and unregulated access to powerful cross-sex hormones must remain a priority.”
Key Findings:
Do No Harm has previously exposed the dangers of hormonal interventions on minors. This report calls upon the FDA to investigate and further monitor online vendors, urges federal lawmakers to develop more restrictive legislation as necessary, and asks the states to prosecute online sellers that violate existing restrictions on cross-sex hormones.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.
The AMA Wants to Have It Both Ways on Gender Ideology
COMMENTARY United States Gender Ideology American Medical Association Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffRecently, the AMA investigated one of its continuing medical education courses that was rife with gender ideology and unscientific endorsements of pediatric gender transitions, finding it did not comply with accreditation standards. But the AMA’s handling of the matter reveals the organization is still on board with gender activism.
Here’s the timeline:
In December, Do No Harm Medical Director Kurt Miceli, MD, submitted a complaint to the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) over a course on pediatric gender medicine produced by the American Medical Association (AMA) that is best described as promoting gender ideology.
The complaint explained that the course, titled “LGBTQ+ Patient-Centered Practices,” violates the ACCME’s standards, which require that all educational recommendations for patient care be grounded in current science, supported by clinical reasoning, and presented in a fair and balanced manner.
As Do No Harm previously reported:
Ultimately, the ACCME initiated an investigation and the AMA took the course down; the link to the course redirects to the AMA’s general CME webpage.
Then, in February of this year, the AMA Education Center sent out an email broadcasting the fact that the course did not meet the requisite accreditation standards.
Figure 1. A screenshot from an email sent by the AMA Education Center.
Here’s the relevant section:
At first blush, this seems encouraging.
One reading of this statement is that the AMA recognizes that its course was “advocating for” practices that are not based on current evidence.
But surely this conclusion was evident to any reviewer prior to the course’s publication. Why only now, after backlash against the course’s content, is the AMA deciding the course does not fully meet standards?
What’s more, the AMA email then directs members to sources that it describes as providing “comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines and recommendations regarding appropriate and safe approaches for the problems or symptoms presented during” the course.
In other words, these sources are what the AMA considers authoritative sources of information on pediatric gender medicine.
Of course, they are anything but.
The listed sources include the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and UpToDate.
The AAP simply has not produced comprehensive evidence-based guidelines on pediatric gender medicine at all.
Instead, it has issued a policy statement, which it reaffirmed in 2023, that it clarifies is “not a comprehensive review of clinical approaches and nuances to pediatric care for children and youth that identify as” transgender. That policy statement includes the claim that puberty blockers are “reversible” treatments for gender dysphoria, a claim that is outright false.
Moreover, the AAP has criticized recent efforts to actually review the evidence behind sex-denying interventions for minors, dismissing the Department of Health and Human Services’ recent evidence review as prioritizing “opinions over dispassionate reviews of evidence.” This is, of course, a complete inversion of the truth.
UpToDate, meanwhile, is a clinical resource that provides clinicians with comprehensive summaries and detailed health information on a broad array of medical topics.
One of its resources is co-authored by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a prominent advocate for and provider of so-called “gender-affirming care.” Reportedly, Olson-Kennedy had initially refused to publish the results of a multi-million dollar, federally-funded study which, according to The New York Times, had found that “puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements” in children.
UpToDate’s resources do not engage with the wealth of evidence on the harms of child sex change interventions and the corresponding lack of evidence supporting the procedures’ effectiveness.
What’s the takeaway from all of this?
It seems like the AMA is talking out of both sides of its mouth.
For one, that the AMA believes these sources are authoritative indicates that it still is failing to grapple with the reality that the weight of evidence does not support so-called “gender-affiriming care.”
And second, that the course was created at all, and that it took a complaint to cause serious evaluation of the course’s content, does not inspire confidence in the AMA’s attitude regarding sex-denying interventions for minors.
The AMA’s attempt to distance itself from the more excessive promotions of gender ideology in its course is notable, to be sure.
But much more is necessary.
Why Medicine Should Avoid the ‘Money-cillin’ Treatment
COMMENTARY Pennsylvania DEI Medical School Commentary Jay Greene, PhDTwo professors at the University of Pennsylvania’s medical school have identified an exciting new treatment to improve health outcomes. It consists of basically giving people money. The marketing department has developed better sounding terms for this treatment, like cash transfers or guaranteed income, but if the marketing folks were really clever, they would be calling it “money-cillin.” That worked for penicillin, right?
Whatever we call it, the idea being advanced by Drs. Aaron Richterman and Harsha Thirumurthy in The Atlantic is that this new treatment is one of the most important interventions in medicine: “when designed with the right basic ingredients, cash transfers are one of the most powerful levers that governments have to alleviate poverty and improve health.” As prominent professors at an Ivy League medical school, we can imagine that Drs. Richterman and Thirumurthy think that “money-cillin” should be studied by leading medical researchers and taught to future doctors. Sure, anatomy and physiology are important for healing patients, but so is welfare policy.
The only problem is that the effects of cash transfers on health outcomes have been rigorously studied and the results have been very disappointing. There was a large-scale experiment in the U.S. in which low-income people were given $1,000 in cash per month for three years and compared to a randomized control group that was given $50 per month. The evaluators, including leading economists from the University of Michigan and the University of California, Berkeley, produced two studies, one describing results on health outcomes and another describing results on labor outcomes. It is worth quoting their findings at length. On health outcomes they found:
Not only did “money-cillin” fail to improve health outcomes, but it actually harmed people’s motivation to work. Again, quoting the results at length, the economists found:
Not surprisingly, giving people cash allows them to work less and spend more on leisure.
In The Atlantic article, Drs. Richterman and Thirumurthy briefly mention that guaranteed income pilot programs in the U.S. “haven’t delivered the dramatic health improvements associated with cash-transfer programs elsewhere.” Without mentioning the large-scale randomized controlled trial described above, they (falsely) assert that these programs have “seemingly produced only modest health gains in the United States.”
But don’t worry. Even when the evidence is against them, these scientists are so smart that they still know they are right. They offer a variety of hypotheses, unsubstantiated by research, to rationalize why money-cillin has not produced the results they expected in the U.S.
First, they falsely describe past efforts as providing too little money to make a difference: “a few hundred dollars a month for a relatively short period of time, typical of guaranteed-income pilots, rarely matches the steep costs of housing, child care, and health care.” The experiment described above provided $1,000 per month for 3 years.
Second, they suggest that cash transfers are insufficient given deeper societal problems: “In the U.S., the dominant health problems are chronic diseases shaped by neighborhood environments, structural inequities in housing and health care, and years of accumulated risk from unhealthy diets and other long-term exposures. These problems are far less responsive to short-term financial boosts. Cash can reduce stress and improve stability, but it cannot, on its own, undo the deep roots of these conditions.”
But if this were true, then it would be a pretty convincing argument against expanding cash transfer programs. Short of revolutionary change, simply providing money would make no difference. Along these same lines, they argue that cash transfers won’t work unless millions get them: “U.S. pilots have been small, reaching only hundreds or thousands of families—too limited to change the broader conditions that shape health outcomes.”
Third, they suggest that cash transfers need to be conditioned on other behaviors to be effective: “cash works best when it is woven into social infrastructure that families already rely on. In many low- and middle-income countries, payments are linked with health visits and other essential services.”
But if that were true, then they are really advocating for traditional welfare programs that place conditions on support rather than arguing for cash transfers or guaranteed income programs. And even though they have no evidence to support this hypothesis, any success of conditional cash transfers would leave it unclear whether the cash or the required behavior was producing any benefits.
After offering all of these rationalizations (and falsehoods), they point to food stamps to prove that expanding cash transfers is essential for improving health outcomes. But they have no experimental evidence—the kind typically required for approval of a new drug—-to support this claim and instead point to observational evidence reliant on complicated and opaque research designs to draw this conclusion. The problem with this kind of evidence is that the results are highly sensitive to researcher choices about research design and model specification, making them very easy to manipulate. When presented with conflicting evidence, we should believe the results of experiments over observational studies.
Arguments like those made by Drs. Richterman and Thirumurthy in this Atlantic article are the equivalent of advocating for communism because it’s never really been tried. It reveals an ideological commitment that is impervious to empirical evidence or scientific examination. Medical research and education should not be wasting time on money-cillin and should instead be focused on scientifically backed medical interventions that doctors can use to help their patients.
Do No Harm Files Civil Rights Complaints Against Kaiser Permanente and CommUnityCare for Operating Discriminatory Patient Programs
Press Release Press Release Do No Harm StaffSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH; March 3, 2026 – Do No Harm filed two complaints with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against Kaiser Permanente and CommUnityCare for operating race-based patient programs that violate multiple federal anti-discrimination laws.
Kaiser Permanente, the nation’s largest private not-for-profit healthcare organization, runs the “Center for Black Health and Wellness,” an “equity in action” program meant to provide primary healthcare to black patients and “even out” alleged health disparities between black and white individuals. The center’s inherently discriminatory mission, coupled with its name (which makes clear an explicit racial preference for black patients), communicates to members of other racial groups that they are unwelcome. Kaiser Permanente’s operation of the center violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.
CommUnityCare, based in Austin, Texas, operates a “Black Men’s Health Clinic,” which is similarly designed to discriminate on the basis of race. As one of the state’s largest Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC), CommUnityCare receives a host of federally allotted benefits and is subject to multiple federal anti-discrimination laws including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which forbid discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, and national origin.
In illegally singling out individuals for healthcare services based on race, both programs are premised on the pernicious stereotype that individuals of the same racial group are all the same—that one’s race says all the doctor needs to know about that person’s medical needs.
“Not only are medical providers like Kaiser and CommUnityCare flouting federal law, but they are also intentionally creating wider disparities in care among patient groups,” said Kurt Miceli, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Do No Harm. “Separating patient care based on race is illegal, immoral by nature, and deprioritizes high quality care in favor of identity-based care. We filed these complaints because the healthcare industry must stop the practice of racial discrimination.”
In addition to discriminating against patients based on race, Do No Harm’s complaints point to other disturbing indications that both clinics prioritize hiring black providers based on the myth of the benefits of racial concordance, which falsely claims patient care is better when provided by a doctor of the same race. Do No Harm has shown that the weight of evidence does not support the notion that racial concordance improves health outcomes.
Read the complaint against Kaiser Permanente and the complaint against CommUnityCare.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.
Do No Harm, AAER, and Buckfire Law Agree to Amicably End Litigation over Buckfire’s Diversity Scholarships
COMMENTARY, Press Release Michigan DEI Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH: March 2, 2026 – On November 13, 2025, Do No Harm and the American Alliance for Equal Rights filed a lawsuit against Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C., alleging that the Michigan-based law firm’s diversity scholarships were not equally open to all participants. Buckfire denied the allegations, contending that the diversity scholarships were open to all students regardless of race or ethnicity.
On February 27, 2026, the parties agreed to amicably resolve the litigation and filed a joint stipulation of dismissal.
To make clear that the scholarship programs are open to all, Buckfire will remove all references to race as eligibility or selection criteria. Buckfire will also clarify that it does not limit “diversity” to any one experience, characteristic, or circumstance, and that its scholarships do not give any preference to any student based on race or ethnicity.
“Do No Harm believes scholarships should be equally open to all races and is thankful that Buckfire agrees,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm.
“We’re grateful to Buckfire for working with us to resolve this matter without the need for further litigation,” said Edward Blum, President of American Alliance for Equal Rights.
“Helping students achieve their educational dreams is a core mission of our law firm. We look forward to providing scholarships that fulfill our commitment to diversity for many years to come,” said Lawrence Buckfire, President of The Buckfire Law Firm.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.