"Willfully Naive": Plaintiffs Condemn 9th Circuit's Parental Rights Decision

Legal Challenge to Washington State’s Gender-Affirming Care Laws Dismissed

A recent legal challenge against Washington state laws that allow minors to access mental health and gender-affirming care without parental consent has been dismissed by a federal appeals court. The decision has sparked strong reactions from those who believe the laws undermine parental rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by two parental rights groups and five sets of parents. The plaintiffs argued that three specific laws interfered with their ability to exercise their parental rights. They claimed that the laws made them hesitant to discipline their children or discuss gender-related topics, fearing that their children might run away to seek care without their knowledge.

The court ruled that the parents lacked standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which requires an "actual or imminent" injury. The 9th Circuit emphasized that plaintiffs cannot create standing by inflicting harm on themselves based on hypothetical fears. This decision was based on a precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court, which states that standing is not valid without concrete evidence of harm.

The three challenged laws include one that allows minors aged 13 and older to receive outpatient treatment without parental consent. Another law requires overnight shelters to contact the state rather than the parents if a child runs away seeking protected health care, which includes gender-affirming care. A third law permits children to stay in shelters for up to 90 days.

One plaintiff, Advocates Protecting Children, stated that children are too young to understand the harmful effects of medically altering their sex. They argue for non-medical treatments that address the root causes of social issues related to gender identity.

The 9th Circuit ruling described the parents’ decisions to avoid certain topics or discipline their children as voluntary reactions based on hypothetical fears. While some parents claimed their children were socially transitioned at school without their consent, the court noted that the laws do not regulate schools. Instead, they primarily focus on shelters and medical providers, not public education.

The ruling has drawn criticism from some parents, who feel that the court dismissed legitimate concerns about the dangers of allowing unrelated parties to have physical control over children. One group, Partners for Ethical Care (PEC), called the decision “willfully naïve” and criticized the court for not addressing the risks associated with such arrangements.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January to ban federal funding for gender reassignment procedures. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also released a report advocating for behavioral therapy instead of irreversible medical interventions. Although a federal judge temporarily blocked the executive order after Washington and other states sued, the Trump administration is expected to continue its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court recently upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, suggesting it may rule similarly on other cases. PEC cofounder Martha Shoultz highlighted concerns about children being referred to state-selected counseling when in a shelter’s custody, which she claims opens the door for dangerous and permanent interventions by strangers.

Shoultz also raised concerns about instances of trafficking when children are kept from their parents and placed under the care of unrelated parties. She cited examples where children were kept from their families under the guise of disagreement with medical transitions.

Some children involved in the case were allegedly encouraged to run away after expressing body dysmorphia, and at least one underwent hospitalization with limited information provided to the parents. These incidents have heightened fears among parents that their children may again seek gender-affirming care without their consent.

The 9th Circuit ruling pointed out that the plaintiffs' claims rely heavily on hypothetical scenarios, lacking any detailed explanation of when or why these situations might occur.

According to reporting by The Center Square, medical providers performed 1,082 gender reassignment procedures on minors under 18 years old in Washington state between 2019 and 2023. This places Washington third in the nation for such procedures, behind California and New York.

The youngest child nationwide to undergo gender-affirming care was only 7 years old, according to Do No Harm. The organization defines these procedures as the use of puberty or hormone blockers and surgeries like mastectomies and penile reconstruction.

Trump’s directive criticized the practice, stating that medical professionals are harming children by performing chemical and surgical mutilations under the false claim that adults can change a child’s sex. He argued that the harm done to children is cloaked in the guise of medical necessity.

Kaiser Permanente announced it will no longer perform surgeries on minors starting next month. However, National Nurses United, the largest nursing union in the country, disagrees with this decision. Lady Rainsard, a registered nurse with Kaiser San Francisco, stated that gender-affirming care is safe and effective. She argued that it is a greater risk to comply with government overreach than to provide care to patients regardless of age.

Children’s National Hospital has also ended its gender transition programs. Do No Harm, which represents medical professionals across the country, argues that allowing children to make life-altering decisions at a young age is dangerous. The group notes that 90% of children who believe they are a different sex no longer hold that view as adults if left to develop without medical interventions.