HHS Turns Wheels on Sex Changes for Minors

Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recently made waves in predicting that “wheels will turn” on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. A new report clarifies that HHS intends to initiate much of the spinning, and that the department is willing to throw around the weight of the federal government to stop sensible state-driven reforms.

Moving Beyond Change Efforts: Evidence and action to support and affirm LGBTQI+ Youth is a newly published report commissioned and recirculated by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (part of HHS).

The report argues that a child’s expressed sexual and gender identity preferences should be affirmed by parents, schools, and medical practitioners: “Withholding timely gender-affirming medical care when indicated, withholding support for a gender-affirming exploratory process, and/or withholding support of social transition when desired, can be harmful because these actions may exacerbate and prolong gender dysphoria.”

Reality is far more complex and demands greater nuance and caution. Indeed, the full 111-page report reveals itself to be inundated with rhetorical sleight of hand, oversold claims based on evidence cited, and misrepresentation of basic facts. We highlight three particularly egregious examples below.

Claim #1: “The Minority Stress Model provides an empirically validated conceptual model for understanding how stress due to anti-LGBTQI+ stigma, coupled with general life stressors, puts individuals of diverse sexual orientation and/or gender identity at increased risk for negative behavioral health outcomes.”

Context: The “minority stress model” that the report endorses asserts that mental health distress typically arises from gender dysphoria rather than vice-versa. Attitudes toward the minority stress model differ across health systems globally – major medical organizations in the United States generally embrace the concept whereas European countries typically and increasingly reject it. Attitudes toward the minority stress framework have major implications for standards of care. If it’s true that mental health distress occurs from a lack of affirmation of enduring incongruence between gender identity and biological sex, then social and medical transition represent a sensible treatment protocol. If, however, expressions of gender dysphoria arise from psychosocial stressors or afflictions but do not signal lasting incongruence, then social and medical transition are more likely to cause harm than benefit.

Reality: There is a strong body of evidence to indicate that children with psychosocial distress, particularly homosexual or bisexual kids navigating their sexual identity, temporarily channel their emotions and anxiety as expressions of gender dysphoria. A study of children referred to gender clinics in Finland reported that 57% had been “significantly bullied at school” and that 75% were undergoing psychiatric treatment for other conditions at the time of their referral. Critically, another study relays that about 4 in 5 children who meet criteria for gender dysphoria will have such feelings recede during puberty. “Instead,” the study notes, “many of these adolescents will identify as non-heterosexual.” The phenomena of rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) and detransition further illuminate the hazards in defaulting to social and medical transition in response to expressions of gender dysphoria.

Expressions of gender dysphoria are especially prevalent among autistic youth, a population that disproportionately struggles with impaired emotional processing and social isolation and vulnerable to the allure of medical explanations and solutions. A study out of the Tavistock gender clinic in the United Kingdom revealed that an estimated 48% of children seen in the clinic were mildly or severely autistic. Rather than acknowledge the high incidence of autism among referrals to gender clinics, the report notes that “some neurodiverse youth are gender diverse.”

Claim #2: “SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) change efforts, commonly referred to as ‘conversion therapy’ or ‘reparative therapy,’ are practices that aim to suppress or alter an individual’s sexual orientation or gender to align with heterosexual orientation, cisgender identity, and/or stereotypical gender expression…Efforts to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are grounded in the belief that being LGBTQI+ is abnormal. They are dangerous, discredited, and ineffective practices.”

Context: The report repeatedly conflates conversion therapy (the practice of attempting to change an individual’s sexual orientation) with resistance to socially or medically affirming expressions of gender dysphoria. Historically, so-called “conversion efforts” referred to efforts to change an individual’s sexual orientation while it is now being used as a rhetorical weapon to describe any treatment that doesn’t automatically affirm a gender identity. For example, Wikipedia archives reveal that “gender identity” first appeared in the “conversion therapy” article in December 2021.

Reality:

Much of the push to conflate resistance to affirmation of gender dysphoria with conversion therapy originates from a 2020 paper authored by activist/researcher Jack Turban and colleagues which asserts that so-called gender identity conversion efforts are mentally detrimental to gender dysphoric youth. Notably, their findings have received strong criticism. For example, a letter to the editor in Archives of Sexual Behavior observes that “Their analysis is compromised by serious methodological flaws, including the use of a biased data sample, reliance on survey questions with poor validity, and the omission of a key control variable … Arguably, even more problematic than the flawed analysis itself is the simplistic ‘affirmation’ versus ‘conversion’ binary, which permeates Turban et al.’s (2020) narrative and establishes the foundation for their analysis and conclusions. The notion that all therapy interventions for GD (gender dysphoria) can be categorically classified into this simplistic binary betrays a misunderstanding of the complexity of psychotherapy.”

 The comparison between gender dysphoria and homosexuality is problematic for other reasons. Most critically, while an estimated 4 out of 5 children who meet the criteria for gender dysphoria will eventually desist in such feelings, there is no indication that majorities of children who express same-sex romantic preferences will eventually experience a cessation of those preferences. Resistance to affirming expressions of gender dysphoria is not a rejection of an individual’s identity. Rather, it is a sensible acknowledgement that most children who express gender dysphoria will not persist in such feelings and that affirmation of transitory feelings with irreversible medical treatments is harmful.

Claim #3: “Legal prohibitions on gender-affirming care (including medical treatment) are harmful to LGBTQ+ children and adolescents.”

Context: Some states are beginning to restrict minor access to medical transition interventions, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery. Advocates of allowing minors to medically transition argue that these interventions are needed to decrease the high incidence of depression and suicide among gender dysphoric children.

Reality: Studies that claim that access to medical transition causes a decrease in depression and suicide are fraught with methodological problems. For example, a recent paper in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine observed that children and adolescents who initiated hormones experienced modest improvement in self-reported mental health over time. However, the “study” did not feature a control group, so it is impossible to determine whether these modest changes represent an improvement over alternative approaches. Another recent paper concludes that restrictions on medical transition for children are associated with an increased in Google searches for “depression” and “suicide,” but close inspection plainly reveals that the underlying data does not support the conclusion.

Restricting minor access to medical transition is not simply a red state phenomenon. Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom – three of the most LGBTQ-friendly nations in the world – have recently moved to impose greater restrictions around minor access to gender-affirming treatments. Even before these restrictions, the nations of Western and Northern Europe all but banned sex reassignment surgeries for those under the age of 16. Indeed, states that allow for puberty blockers at 8, cross-sex hormones at 12, or double mastectomies at 13 – all of which have occurred in the United States – are far greater outliers from Western norms than are states that prohibit these interventions before age 18.

The proselytization of gender ideology is falling flat: The share of Americans who say that gender cannot be changed has increased in recent years and as of June 2022 six in ten adults agree that gender is determined by sex at birth. Part of the challenge for gender ideology advocates is that they are stuck between admitting lunacy or playing fast and loose with facts. HHS and the Biden White House for their part appear bearish on the prospect of turning wheels on the merit of honest arguments.

Washington State Endangers Kids – And Ignores Parents

Should parents have a say in whether their children undergo transgender medical treatments? No, according to a bill that looks set to become law in Washington state. It’s one of the most extreme measures we’ve seen yet, and it shows how aggressive and uncaring gender activists really are.

The soon-to-be state law is deeply concerning. It allows homes for runaway children to refuse to notify parents if their kids are getting transgender treatments – think puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even sex-change surgeries. In the legislation’s own words, so-called “gender affirming treatment can be prescribed to two-spirit, transgender, nonbinary, and other gender diverse individuals” without parental notification.

Make no mistake: This policy endangers kids. It’s been proven that huge numbers of kids who believe they’re a different gender struggle with mental health issues. It’s also been proven that the vast majority of these children will ultimately choose their actual gender when they become adults. Yet transgender treatments are often invasive and even irreversible. They can leave children with a life of physical and mental health problems, on top of any psychological problems they may already have.

Parents are essential to protecting their children from doing things they’ll regret and will hurt them for the rest of their lives. That’s why it’s so concerning that Washington state is on the verge of stripping parents’ ability to keep their kids safe.

The bill has now passed the state legislature and is waiting for Gov. Jay Inslee’s signature. Will he really ignore parents and endanger their kids? Or will he protect these especially vulnerable young people by keeping their parents involved? The choice shouldn’t be that hard, but sadly, it looks like the governor is listening to extremists instead of common sense.

ETSU Keeps Its Foot on the Gas with a “Moon Shot for Equity” Initiative

,

East Tennessee State University (ETSU), home of the Quillen College of Medicine (QCOM), is doubling down on its woke DEI efforts. In fact, it’s shooting for the moon.

Last month, we reported that the dean of medicine at QCOM sent an email to university staff in response to Do No Harm gaining traction with our report that pointed out the elite DEI establishment in Tennessee’s medical schools. His message was clear: Stay focused and stay the course with ETSU’s commitment to DEI. This time, it’s Dr. Keith Johnson’s turn, VP for Equity and Inclusion.

Figure 1. ETSU Office of Equity and Inclusion newsletter, April 3, 2023.

The April 3 edition of the Office of Equity and Inclusion Newsletter sets the expectation by opening with the message that DEI efforts should be considered “long-term investments, rather than expecting an immediate turnaround.” While the initial tidal wave of diversity statements, strategic plans, implicit bias training, and establishment of DEI offices accelerated quickly in the summer of 2020, “many of those plans have not yielded positive results.” Johnson notes that employees are often “frustrated, exhausted, and even skeptical” of their DEI work being successful, and this may be due to “charging already marginalized individuals with solving or fixing their own problem.”

He goes on:

Many who are deep into DEI work often feel unsupported by peers who are not convinced that their efforts are worthwhile, or worthy of the investment, while others may demonstrate no interest in supporting the work. In addition, there are some research studies that suggest DEI initiatives can actually backfire, making prejudiced and racist behavior more likely to raise its ugly head in the workplace.

Considering all that negativity, it makes sense to abandon the DEI agenda and focus the school’s resources on more positive and productive initiatives, right?

Not at ETSU.  

Forget the carrot. It’s time to get out the stick. “Just like incentives given to employees who meet or exceed established performance goals,” says Johnson, “there should be consequences as a result of not achieving those same goals.” Enter the “Moon Shot for Equity”. Policies and processes that will be scrutinized with this program include admissions, financial aid, advising, student engagement, and “climate,” with the goal of closing the “equity gaps” at ETSU.

Figure 2. Moon Shot for Equity timeline from the OEI April 3 newsletter.

The Moon Shot for Equity is a partnership with EAB, a private company that uses the same language Johnson used in his newsletter: “To fulfill the promise of student success,” EAB states, “we must eliminate persistent equity gaps at our colleges and universities.” ETSU’s webpage for the program hosts a video promoting EAB and the “systemic barriers to attending and graduating college” that “historically underserved students continue to face.”

Figure 3. EAB video on ETSU’s Moon Shot for Equity webpage.

ETSU’s flurry of goings-on and expensive partnerships to cement DEI concepts into its operations suggests the university is feeling the heat from the Tennessee General Assembly’s recent legislative action concerning state-funded medical education providers. House Bill 1376 and Senate Bill 817, sponsored by Rep. Ragan and Senator Hensley, specifically calls out the importance of competency-based education and training in medicine. It bans required DEI oaths, pushes back against woke national organizations, places limits on DEI-related positions at schools, and includes other necessary reforms. HB 1376/SB 817 just passed the House and Senate and will become law after Governor Lee signs it. Additionally, HB 158 and SB 102, sponsored by Rep. Zachary and Senator Gardenhire, ban implicit bias training requirements.

The initiatives of the Office of Equity and Inclusion have a direct effect on the medical education programs at ETSU’s Quillen College of Medicine. Tennessee’s lawmakers must continue their efforts to counteract the consequences of programs and actions that are based on ideology and activism instead of science and facts. Patients will insist on a moonshot for quality and skill in their future physicians and ETSU must refocus its objectives toward serving them.

We Found More Discriminatory Scholarships at the University of Kansas School of Medicine

The University of Kansas School of Medicine at the KU Medical Center (KUMC) continues to violate civil rights laws with two more discriminatory scholarships.

We previously reported about the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ investigation of KUSM for its Urban Scholars Program for Students Underrepresented in Medicine. In response the school quietly changed the eligibility requirements by removing the race/ethnicity criteria that originally created the violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But KUMC has more scrubbing to do.

The KUMC Department of Plastic, Burn, and Wound Surgery offers the Summer Diversity Research Scholarship for First and Second Year Medical Students. According to the department’s informational document, “To be considered for a scholarship through the KU Department of Plastic Surgery Scholarship Program, the student must be a member of a population that is underrepresented in Plastic Surgery; i.e. African American/Black, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Alaska Native and/or Hispanic/Latino.”

Figure 1. KUMC Dept. of Plastic, Burn, and Wound Surgery’s “Summer Diversity Research Scholarship for First and Second Year Medical Students.”

The application for this scholarship requires applicants to list their “Racial Identification/Ethnicity:”

Figure 2. Application for the Summer Diversity Research Scholarship for First and Second Year Medical Students at KUMC.

Under these requirements, medical students who are white, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Middle Eastern/North African are illegally excluded from this scholarship on the basis of their race, color, or national origin.

The school also offers the Department of Plastic Surgery Sub-Internship in Plastic Surgery Diversity Scholarship:

Figure 3. Department of Plastic, Burn, and Wound Surgery “Educational Resources for Medical Students” at KUMC.

The informational document is available for download from this page, which lists the same racially discriminatory eligibility criteria:

Figure 4. Eligibility criteria for the Sub-Internship in Plastic Surgery Diversity Scholarship at KUMC.

The application for this scholarship also collects the student’s “Racial Identification/Ethnicity:”

Figure 5. Application for the Diversity Sub-Internship in Plastic Surgery Scholarship at KUMC.

Both scholarships at KUMC cover the awardee’s travel costs and provide stipends of $1,500 and $500, respectively.

Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry filed a federal civil rights complaint against KUMC for these two scholarships. Perry requested the Kansas City OCR investigate KUMC for violations of Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity.

Do No Harm Lawsuit Charges Arkansas Minority Health Commission with Discrimination against Students Based on Skin Color

Today, Do No Harm, an organization working to protect healthcare from discriminatory, divisive ideologies, filed a lawsuit on behalf of a member against Kenya L. Eddings, the Executive Director of the Arkansas Minority Health Commission. The suit asserts Ms. Eddings, in her official capacity as head of the AMHC, is responsible for a scholarship – the Minority Healthcare Workforce Diversity Scholarship – that discriminates against students based on their skin color.

“This scholarship clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Board Chair of Do No Harm. “The Arkansas Minority Health Commission is illegally excluding and discriminating against certain medical students and denying them opportunities based on their race, color, or national origin – the scholarship should be declared unconstitutional and promptly enjoined.”

The Do No Harm suit, filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas, maintains that the scholarship is blatantly illegal. The Equal Protection Clause requires racial classifications to satisfy strict scrutiny, and the scholarship’s gross racial exclusion obviously fails to meet those standards. 

To be eligible for the scholarship, an applicant must “confirm that [he is] a racial minority,” meaning “African American, Hispanic, Native American/American Indian, Asian American or Marshallese.” In other words, Arkansas’s white and Arab-American students need not apply.

Do No Harm seeks the following:

  • A declaratory judgment that the Arkansas Minority Health Commission’s Minority Healthcare Workforce Diversity Scholarship violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • A permanent injunction barring Defendant from selecting student applicants based on race and from enforcing any and all racially discriminatory eligibility criteria when awarding the Arkansas Minority Health Commission’s Minority Healthcare Workforce Diversity Scholarship.
  • A preliminary injunction granting the above relief throughout the pendency of this case and a temporary restraining order preventing Defendant from selecting any scholarship recipients until the Court resolves the preliminary injunction.

ABOUT DO NO HARM: 

Do No Harm is a diverse group of physicians, healthcare professionals, medical students, patients, and policymakers united by an ethical mission: Protect healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology. They believe in making healthcare better for all – not undermining it in pursuit of a political agenda. Learn more at www.donoharmmedicine.org.

Legislative Update: Kansas

, ,

The Do No Harm team has been busy crisscrossing the country this spring, hard at work partnering with policymakers and allies to champion our ideas in the states. One of those states is Kansas, where the Do No Harm team made significant headway pushing back on the woke takeover of healthcare.

After Do No Harm Board Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb testified in front of the Kansas state legislature on February 1, legislators advanced three important reforms that are headed to Governor Laura Kelly’s desk in the form of two bills. Here is a short summary of each:

SB 26: Thanks to significant work by Senator Beverly Gossage and Representative Susan Humphries, this bill creates the Kansas Child Mutilation Prevention Act aimed at protecting children from the harmful, life-changing impacts of sex reassignment surgeries.

The bill would:

  • Permit an individual who had sex reassignment procedures performed as a child to bring a civil lawsuit against the physician who performed the procedure
  • Define the medically verifiable disorders that would not qualify for civil litigation
  • Establish the cap on monetary damages that could be sought and awarded

In addition, SB 26 would require the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts to revoke the license of a physician who performed a childhood sex reassignment service.

HB 2184: Thanks to the strong leadership by Senate President Ty Masterson, Speaker Dan Hawkins, and Majority Leader Chris Croft, and tireless efforts from Rep. Steven Howe and Senator J.R. Claeys, two important provisions were included in the state’s general budget bill.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) reforms to the Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board:

  • This bill mandates that no fiscal expenditures will be allowed by the agency to require any training, education, or instructional program that includes DEI, Critical Race Theory, or related content as a condition of licensure or permits.
    • The Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board was headed in the opposite direction, and testified that they had ”voted to request statutory language to decrease the required number of continuing education hours in diagnosis and treatment from 6 hours to 3 hours and to add language for a new requirement of 3 hours in diversity training for all licensees.”
  • Other medical boards testified that they do not currently (a do not plan to) require DEI training for licensees–they know the legislature is now watching.
  • This reform is applicable for fiscal years ending June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2025 (any policies included in general budgets are not considered permanent but are active for the following two fiscal years after the budget is approved).
  • Visit page 10 for more information on this specific provision).

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) reforms for the Board of Regents at any publicly funded Kansas institution of higher education:

  • This bill mandates that no publicly funded fiscal expenditures will be allowed by any postsecondary educational institution to:
    • “Compel, require, induce or solicit, encourage or coerce any applicant, employee, student or contractor” to:
      • Endorse or oppose any ideology
      • Provide a statement detailing their experience, commitment to, or expertise in DEI or any ideology
      • Provide preferential consideration to an applicant, employee, student, or contractor because of such a commitment, endorsement, or statement
    • It also mandates that each Institution’s Office of General Counsel provide a compliance report on these provisions to the Director of Legislative Research and the Attorney General.
  • These statements were required for positions such as a Professor of Practice for Clinical Child Psychology at University of Kansas, Assistant Professor of Biology Forensics at Washburn University, and Professor of Pharmacology at Kansas State University.
  • This reform is applicable for fiscal years ending June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2025 (any policies included in general budgets are not considered permanent but are active for the following two fiscal years after the budget is approved).
  • Visit page 257 (h) (1) for more information on this specific provision.

These reforms are tremendous strides forward in the effort to keep discrimination out of medicine and to protect children. While SB 26 and HB 2184 successfully passed the Kansas House and Senate, they could still be vetoed by Governor Kelly. Stay tuned for more information on potential legislative veto overrides should this occur.

S1E12: The Dangerous Influence of the Anti-Racism Movement on Society

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb and Benita Cotton-Orr discuss how the woke movement towards anti-Racism has transformed how Americans view one another, shifting from a perspective of opportunity to one of oppression.

The University of Kansas School of Medicine Partners with California School to Promote Far-Left Anti-Racism Program

,

The KU Medical Center (KUMC) at the University of Kansas School of Medicine (KUSOM) has teamed up with UC San Francisco (UCSF) in a program that promotes radical, discriminatory, and divisive concepts – all in the name of research.

A source let us know about the REPAIR Project at KUMC, which is an “anti-racism collaboration” the school is taking part in with UCSF, as well as engaging with “communities of color” in the geographic areas surrounding the KUMC campuses.

Figure 1. The REPAIR Project at KUMC.

KUMC’s Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ODEI) is involved in recruiting participants for the REPAIR Project, citing it as a framework of “anti-racism initiatives” to integrate into the MD program’s curriculum and continuing medical education. The goal is “addressing unequal outcomes in our clinics” and “anti-Black racism” by using “a social justice and anti-racism curriculum throughout the medical center.” The structure claims that racial inequities in the healthcare industry and academic medicine are caused by “systemic race-based structural violence and racism in society as a whole.”

Figure 2. Framework of the REPAIR Project at KUMC.

The ODEI’s website has a short recruitment video that invites area residents to take part in “an oral history research project” and have their stories heard if they have “received substandard medical care.”

Figure 3. REPAIR Project recruitment video on the KUMC ODEI website.

Participants will be asked:

  • What are the harms suffered at the hands of the medical profession that local community members carry with them?
  • What are their inherited memories and lived experiences of harm at the hands of biomedicine?
  • What restorative actions would it take to repair those harms?
  • How should KU Medical Center and other area institutions work with communities to design and implement its restorative work?

The site also lists several resources from UCSF:

Figure 4. REPAIR Project resources listed on the KUMC ODEI website.

At UCSF, where the program originated, “REPAIR” is an acronym for “REParations and Anti-Institutional Racism, which provides the unifying theme behind this project.” The three-year initiative, backed by the Regents of the University of California, aims to “address Anti-Black Racism and augment Black, Indigenous, People of Color voices and presence” in the fields of science, healthcare, and medicine. The divisive rhetoric of the REPAIR Project is outlined in the “strategic annual themes:”

Year One: Medical Reparations: Addressing the Ongoing Legacies of Slavery in American Medicine

The premise for the first phase is “an exploration of the legacies of slavery that are intertwined with both histories and ongoing forms of medical racism.” UCSF states that black enrollment in medical education programs has been impeded by “not-so-hidden racism admission practices,” and asks, “What would it mean to rectify and repair these harms in the form of reparations?”

Year Two: Medical Abolitionism

This phase seeks to define how the health sciences can “untangle the current interdependencies between medicine and carceral regimes,” and warns of how physicians may be “unwittingly criminalizing and pathologizing those already marginalized” in the course of their clinical practice. The REPAIR Project suggests that healthcare providers must play a role in “rethinking systems of community safety” that do not include police or security personnel, as well as the development of “emancipatory models of care.”

Figure 5. Information on a 2022 discussion on the REPAIR Project at UCSF.

Year Three: Decolonizing the Health Sciences

The topic for the project’s third year is to investigate “how racism can get coded into biomedicine and social sciences of health.” UCSF defines “decolonization” as “the global reach of white supremacy as an entrenched and invisible ideological system” that has produced “unequal exposures to harm” and discrimination that is both implicit and explicit. The goal? “Craft a decolonized, race-sensitive science of medicine health, and then to consider how that knowledge and knowledge production are best translated for clinical care.”

    The University of Kansas School of Medicine and the KU Medical Center is already under investigation by the Office for Civil Rights for a racially discriminatory scholars’ program. Why is the institution also participating in this far-left, California-sponsored project?

    Patients shouldn’t be frightened into believing that their doctors don’t have their best interests in mind when seeking treatment at KU Health. Kansas policymakers must act now to remove the REPAIR Project and other destructive ideologies from further degrading the quality of medical education in “the region’s premier academic health center.”

    Do No Harm Files Amicus Brief in Florida Court

    Do No Harm submitted an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief on Friday in federal court to support the State of Florida’s decision to refuse providing Medicaid reimbursement for “gender affirming care” for minors. The case is Dekker v. Weida, No. 4:22-cv-325, and is being litigated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The outcome of the case turns on whether the State of Florida could have reasonably concluded that “gender-affirming care” is an experimental treatment without an adequate scientific basis. Do No Harm’s amicus brief explains that the State of Florida’s decision was eminently reasonable with respect to minors given the extent of the known harms, unknown risks, and lack of benefit from these treatments. A decision is expected in the coming months.

    Click here to read the full amicus brief.

    Dr. Stanley Goldfarb Joins The Howie Carr Show

    Talk show host Howie Carr welcomes Dr. Stanley Goldfarb to discuss how DEI is dismantling quality healthcare in the United States.

    Medical Reparations Have Arrived

    Changes designed to increase black patients’ access to kidney transplants pervert good medicine and punish white patients to right nonexistent wrongs.

    The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) and the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) are implementing new policies to make skin color a crucial factor in who receives life-saving kidney transplants. The shift is perhaps the most dangerous victory for wokeness in health care to date.

    In the name of “equity,” UNOS and OPTN purport to be expanding black patients’ access to kidney transplants. They essentially claim that the longstanding system for such transplants is racist, pointing to how black patients make up 30 percent of the dialysis population and transplant wait list but receive a smaller fraction of kidney transplants.

    Read more at City Journal.

    UCSD Maintains Its Woke Ways With a Top Tier DICE Inventory Score

    Just how woke is California’s UC San Diego School of Medicine (UCSD SOM)? Very woke indeed, as it reported the AAMC.

    Here’s the background. In November 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges released a report showing that the vast majority of medical schools have embraced identity politics, despite their divisive and even discriminatory nature. The report was based on surveys of specific medical schools, which the AAMC didn’t name.

    For the sake of transparency and accountability, Do No Harm submitted freedom of information requests to public medical schools nationwide, including the UCSD School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that California taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

    Here’s what the UCSD School of Medicine has self-reported:

    • It has adopted racially discriminatory admissions practices under the guise of “affirmative action.” This means it’s potentially lowering standards in the name of diversity, thereby threatening patient health. UCSD SOM has a “holistic admissions policy,” and puts its DEI efforts front and center on the Admissions landing page.
    Figure 1. UCSD School of Medicine Admissions page: This Is Us.
    Figure 2. Anti-Racism Coalition Day of Action at UCSD SOM on June 8, 2020.
    • It lobbies for woke policies at the federal, state, and/or local levels. This means it’s wading into toxic public debates instead of fully focusing on educating future physicians. UCSD SOM says its “Financial Aid Director sits on local and state committees that address financial aid inequities. California Association of Student Financial Aid Administration – State Issues Committee to provide approval or disapproval of possible assembly and senate bills related to financial aid and other student insecurities.”
    • It offers tenure and promotion to faculty who prove their commitment to extreme identity politics and woke priorities. This is a litmus test that requires faculty to toe the party line instead of teaching medicine at the highest level. The SOM cited the University of California academic policy on this topic from the Office of the President, stating, “Per APM 210-1-d – The University of California is committed to excellence and equity in every facet of its mission. Contributions in all areas of faculty achievement that promote equal opportunity and diversity should be given due recognition in the academic personnel process, and they should be evaluated and credited in the same way as other faculty achievements.”
    • Its administrators are active within local, regional, and national forums to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. This means it’s wasting resources that would be better spent on real medical education. The UCSD SOM told the AAMC it participates in the Advisory Council for NIH’s National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, with the chancellor and vice chancellor being involved in other DEI-related issues on the national level.
    Figure 3. UCSD SOM overall DICE Inventory score.

    All told, the UCSD SOM has instituted 95.4% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

    California taxpayers help fund the UCSD School of Medicine. They, and the policymakers who represent them, should ask why they’re giving so much money to an institution that’s putting divisive and discriminatory ideology at the heart of medical education. More importantly, they should ensure the UCSD SOM stops, and soon.

    The Office for Civil Rights is Investigating the University of Minnesota Department of Medicine for a Title IX Violation

    The Department of Medicine in the University of Minnesota Medical School is under investigation by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

    Mark Perry, senior fellow at Do No Harm, filed a complaint with the OCR in March for the Dr. Anne Joseph Women’s Early Research Career (WERC) Award. This award provides funding to supplement the research productivity of junior faculty researchers, but eligibility is exclusively limited to women. Sex-based discrimination is prohibited under Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972.

    “Over the past four years, the University of Minnesota has been subject to no fewer than 25 federal civil rights complaints,” Perry said. “This illustrates just how widespread violations of Title VI and Title IX violations are in higher education.”

    The Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Department of Medicine sponsors the WERC and other research awards “that support the career development of women and those who are under-represented in medicine and sciences (URiM).”

    The Chicago OCR opened the investigation on April 6.

    Children’s Hospitals Need Doctors, Not Social Workers and Political Activists

    Some things should be obvious, like the idea that children’s hospitals should focus on children’s health. Not so fast, say the experts at the Children’s Hospital Association. They want doctors at these critical institutions to be more like social workers and political activists than medical professionals.

    The CHA made that clear in March when discussing “a creative way to make time for DEI training.” It wants doctors to spend more time learning about the “social determinants of health,” a clever phrase that woke activists use to describe things that aren’t in the domain of health care. That includes everything from homelessness to poverty to food insecurity and beyond.

    Figure 1. From the March 30, 2023 edition of “Children’s Hospitals Today” by the Children’s Hospital Association.

    These are serious problems that need real solutions, without question. But doctors – including those at children’s hospitals – aren’t suited to tackle them. A doctor’s job is to treat patients’ individual medical needs. Making them focus on things like homelessness and poverty turns them into political activists. For the people pushing this, that’s a feature, not a bug.

    Proponents of DEI want doctors to be activists because it helps them achieve their goal of transforming society along divisive ideological lines. They want doctors to get behind things like a bigger welfare state, more government intervention in the economy, and a federal bureaucracy that picks winners and losers based on skin color. Apparently, sacrificing the mission of health care is an acceptable cost to achieving this vision.

    Doctors should stick to treating individual patients’ medical needs. We already have social workers who help people address other challenges in life. We also already have plenty of activists who can advocate for the policies they want. Medical professionals should focus on medicine, at children’s hospitals and everywhere else.

    The Medical College of Wisconsin Scrubs Discriminatory Language From a Student Elective Program

    The Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) has removed specific race/ethnicity eligibility criteria from one of its programs.

    Last year we reported that Do No Harm had filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against MCW for its 2022 Visiting Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) Student Elective Program (archived page). Acceptance into the program required applicants to “be a member of a group that is recognized as racially/ethnically URiM by MCW: Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Black/African American, Native American, and Hmong/Hmong American.” This requirement is a violation of Title VI of the civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination based on race/ethnicity.

    Figure 1. Flyer for the 2022 Visiting URiM Student Elective program at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

    Fast forward to the 2023 version of this program, and MCW has quietly updated the eligibility criteria for applicants. The new target population is fourth-year med students “who are from or have lived experience engaging people in underserved communities in the United States.”

    Figure 2. Flyer for the 2023 Visiting URiM Student Elective program at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

    MCW took this action despite no formal investigation being opened by the OCR.

    If your college or university is offering or promoting discriminatory scholarships or programs in the health professions, Do No Harm wants to hear from you.

    A Physician’s Journey to Combat The Risk of Radical Politics in American Healthcare

    Dr. Stanley Goldfarb joined the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons:

    Florida Atlantic University Schmidt College of Medicine Making “Moderate” Efforts – DICE Inventory Score 71.6%

    Just how woke is the Florida Atlantic University (FAU) Schmidt College of Medicine? According to its Diversity, Inclusion, Culture, and Equity (DICE) Inventory, it is well on its way to woke, as it confirmed to Do No Harm.

    Here’s the background. In November 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges released a report showing that the vast majority of medical schools have embraced identity politics, despite their divisive and even discriminatory nature. The report was based on surveys of specific medical schools, which the AAMC didn’t name.

    For the sake of transparency and accountability, Do No Harm submitted freedom of information requests to public medical schools nationwide, including the FAU Schmidt College of Medicine (SCOM). We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Florida taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

    Here’s what the FAU Schmidt College of Medicine has self-reported:

    • It has adopted racially discriminatory admissions practices under the guise of “affirmative action.” This means it’s potentially lowering standards in the name of diversity, thereby threatening patient health. FAU SCOM reports that it “utilizes a holistic admissions process,” and told AAMC that the Graduate Programs Admissions Committee acted in “waiving the GRE requirement to increase inclusiveness.”
    • It has a “dedicated office, staff, or resources” dedicated to DEI. This means there’s a permanent woke bureaucracy pushing ideology on faculty and students. The Office for Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) supports programming and pathway programs with budget dollars “as well as donor funding.”
    • It lobbies for woke policies at the federal, state, and/or local levels. This means it’s wading into toxic public debates instead of fully focusing on educating future physicians.  “The College JEDI Officer participates on a DEI subcommittee of the Florida Medical Schools Council of Deans,” the DICE Inventory shows.
    • Its administrators are active within local, regional, and national forums to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. This means it’s wasting resources that would be better spent on real medical education. This response on the DICE Inventory listed ten memberships, workgroups, and forums the FAU SCOM leadership is engaging in.
    Figure 1. FAU overall DICE Inventory score.

    All told, FAU SCOM has instituted 71.6% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

    Florida taxpayers help fund the Florida Atlantic University Schmidt College of Medicine. They, and the policymakers who represent them, should ask why they’re giving so much money to an institution that’s putting divisive and discriminatory ideology at the heart of medical education. More importantly, they should ensure FAU SCOM stops, and soon.

    S1E11: Pushing Back Implicit Bias Training With Professionalism

    Dr. Stanley Goldfarb explains the false premises behind Implicit Bias Training and details Do No Harm’s efforts in the states and Washington, D.C. to educate policymakers and leaders that this “training” should not be the basis for continuing medical education.