Utah
Utah Republicans ignore study supporting gender-affirming care for trans youth. It's research they demanded
Utah’s Republican leaders, who banned access to medically recommended care for trans minors, spent more than two years demanding proof that gender-affirming hormone therapy benefits transgender youth. Now they have it — and they’re still refusing to budge.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate’s email newsletter.
A comprehensive, state-commissioned report released last week shows that gender-affirming care leads to better mental health and lower suicide risk among transgender minors. But instead of lifting the state’s ban, GOP lawmakers are doubling down on a policy that doctors, advocates, and families have long warned is putting lives at risk.
Department of Health and Human Services deletes mental health report on Utah’s transgender children
What is gender-affirming care, who uses it, and do they regret it?
What’s in the report
The more than 1,000-page report, conducted by the University of Utah’s Drug Regimen Review Center and quietly posted online Monday by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, was required by S.B. 16 — the 2023 law that banned most gender-affirming medical care for minors. At the time, Republican Gov. Spencer Cox called the law a “nuanced” approach and insisted the state needed more data. Now that the data is in, his office has gone silent.
The report eviscerates the claims Republicans used to pass the ban in the first place.
“The conventional wisdom among non-experts has long been that there are limited data on the use of [gender-affirming hormone therapy] in pediatric patients,” the researchers wrote. “However, results from our exhaustive literature searches have led us to the opposite conclusion.” The study found over 230 primary studies involving 28,056 trans youth — “far exceeding” the evidence that typically supports FDA approval for high-risk pediatric treatments, including gene therapy.
“The body of evidence we have uncovered exceeds the amount of evidence that often serves as the basis of FDA approval for many high-risk, new drugs approved in pediatric populations in the U.S.,” the authors added.
The report emphasized that such treatments are not given to prepubertal children, that puberty blockers and hormones are typically initiated only in early or mid-adolescence, and that surgeries — especially bottom surgeries — are not recommended for minors. The review also found no significant long-term safety concerns, and that “regret” associated with treatment is extremely rare. In fact, among the 32 studies examining regret, researchers found it was “virtually nonexistent” — and when present, it was “only a very minor proportion” of treatment discontinuation.
Utah Republicans reject their own commissioned review
The report’s release was met with no public response from Cox or legislative leaders, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.
Republican state Reps. Katy Hall and Bridger Bolinder, who helped pass the law, dismissed the findings outright in a joint statement. “The science isn’t there,” they claimed. “The risks are real, and the public is with us.”
Trump administration announces end to gender-affirming care for transgender veterans
State Senate President Stuart Adams echoed their skepticism. “Utah enacted a law to safeguard the long-term health and well-being of minors while providing time to carefully examine the evolving medical landscape surrounding novel and irreversible procedures for minors,” he said, according to the Tribune.
State Rep. Mike Kennedy, the bill’s lead sponsor and a physician, declined to comment to the paper.
LGBTQ+ rights advocates say the report dismantles GOP’s justification for care bans
Chris Erchull, senior attorney at GLAD Law, told The Advocate that the report’s conclusion is straightforward.“This is the most comprehensive and the most recent review of all of the studies on care that’s been provided to transgender young people over many decades,” Erchull said. “It confirms what many providers and families already knew — that the standards of care for young transgender people provide benefits to their overall health and well-being. All of these attempts to block access to care for transgender young people have been causing harm. And any future attempts will also cause harm.”
But the science is there. The review found that youth who received care before age 18 had better outcomes, especially around depression, anxiety, and suicidality. Hormonal treatments were associated with positive mental health and psychosocial functioning outcomes. “When left untreated, individuals with gender dysphoria may experience psychological and social harms,” the report notes.
Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the Utah report “by far the most detailed, thorough, and comprehensive review of the medical evidence relating to transgender healthcare.”
“This review shows that when the evidence is viewed objectively, there is no serious question that this care is safe, effective, and medically necessary for some youth,” Minter told The Advocate. “The report also makes clear that if legislators are concerned about this care, they can implement guardrails to ensure that it is being prescribed consistently with the standards of care.”
Minter added that while the report came too late to be submitted in the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of United States v. Skrmetti, it offers “an incredibly helpful counterpoint to the incomplete and distorted coverage of this care that has dominated the mainstream press.”
“The data show overwhelmingly that the people who need this care benefit significantly from it”
Erchull said the report also rebuts widespread misinformation.
“One of the biggest misconceptions is that this care is easy to access and handed out without oversight,” he said. “But the study tells us something very important: regret rates are exceedingly low. People may hear powerful anecdotes from individuals who felt they were over-prescribed or misdiagnosed, and those are heartbreaking stories. But they don’t represent the whole picture. The data show overwhelmingly that the people who need this care benefit significantly from it — and that medical providers are doing a good job of ensuring the right people are receiving the right medical care.”
Every major medical association in the United States, including the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, supports gender-affirming care as proven and effective treatment.
Republicans pass ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ banning federally funded gender-affirming care for trans people
“The findings of this report support the existing expert standard of care and do not support the bans enacted thus far in 27 states,” Whitman-Walker Institute executive director Kellan Baker told The Advocate. “I think it says that they’re not actually interested in science or evidence because when they can’t predetermine the outcome of a scientific evidence review based on their political agenda, it finds that the existing standard of care is beneficial. These findings also contradict efforts to smuggle anti-trans provisions into Medicaid for transgender people of all ages via the House reconciliation bill when it was jammed through under cover of darkness last week.”
On Thursday, Republicans in Congress passed a measure forbidding federal funding for gender-affirming care under the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid. The bill also eliminates coverage for gender-affirming care under essential health benefits, even for adults with private insurance regulated under the Affordable Care Act.
If lawmakers in Utah lift the moratorium, the report recommends that the health department outline strict guardrails: a certified treatment board, licensed experts, interdisciplinary care teams, and an enhanced informed consent process. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, those recommendations are in place, but the political will is not.
Like all medical treatments, gender-affirming care is already overseen by expert physicians and follows best practices established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. They note that receiving this kind of care is not fast.
Now, with Utah’s own evidence confirming what trans communities and medical experts have said all along, the question is no longer whether gender-affirming care is safe. It’s whether lawmakers will admit it matters and that transgender youth deserve to live.
The state’s justification that the medications used aren’t FDA-approved specifically for gender dysphoria also doesn’t hold. The report emphasizes that off-label prescribing is both legal and common in pediatric medicine, especially when drugs are already approved for adults but lack industry incentives for further trials in youth.
The law’s impact has been immediate. After the ban was enacted in early 2023, the University of Utah closed its pediatric gender clinic. The Tribune notes that the same year, a state-run survey found that more than 60 percent of trans students in the state had considered suicide, with one-quarter of students having attempted it.
Utah Gov. Signs Bill Banning Most Gender-Affirming Care for Youth
Advocates warned this would happen when the law was enacted. “This is a devastating and dangerous violation of the rights and privacy of transgender Utahns,” said Chase Strangio, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union LGBTQ & HIV Project, at the time. “We won’t stop defending your autonomy and freedom until each and every one of you can access the care you need.”
Utah
Melissa Holyoak appointed interim US attorney for District of Utah
SALT LAKE CITY — Melissa Holyoak has been appointed by the U.S. Department of Justice as the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Utah.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Holyoak to the position on Monday.
The previous U.S. attorney for Utah, Felice John Viti, was the acting U.S. attorney under the Vacancies Reform Act. He moved into the position after Trina A. Higgins resigned. Viti will now return to his role as the first assistant U.S. attorney, according to the attorney’s office.
As U.S. attorney, Holyoak will be Utah’s top federal law enforcement officer for the district of Utah. She will prosecute federal crimes, and defend the United States in civil lawsuits within that district.
Holyoak previously served Utah as solicitor general with the Utah Attorney General’s Office, Bondi’s office said in an email. She oversaw civil and criminal appeals, constitutional defense, as well as antitrust and data privacy divisions among others.
According to a profile that ran Monday in the Deseret News, Holyoak is a “conservative who values the state’s role in a system that shares sovereignty with the federal government.”
Most recently, Holyoak served as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.
“Melissa is a woman of keen judgement, deep integrity, and unfailing commitment to the rule of law,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “… She will be sorely missed at the FTC. But our loss is Utah’s great gain.”
Holyoak graduated from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law in 2003. She is married and has four children.
She is a member of the Utah, Washington D.C. and Missouri bars.
Contributing: Mary Culbertson, KSL
How federal law enforcement is working with ICE in Utah and beyond
Utah
Utah County faces steep costs in rise of capital murder cases
SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — Three high-profile death penalty cases are costing Utah County taxpayers millions of dollars, and records show the financial burden could have been reduced if the county had been accepted into a state fund designed to help pay those legal bills.
“We’re going to approve over $1 million today in expenses for an event that we didn’t want,” one Utah County commissioner said in a recent public meeting. “None of us wanted, and it happened to be here, and our taxpayers will now foot the bill.”
The most recent case involves Tyler Robinson, accused of shooting and killing Charlie Kirk earlier this year. So far, more than $1 million has been approved to cover the cost of prosecuting and defending Robinson.
But Robinson’s isn’t the only case draining county resources. Utah County is also footing the bill to defend Michael Jayne, accused of killing Sgt. Bill Hooser in 2024, and to retry Douglas Carter, charged with murdering a woman in Provo back in 1985.
“These types of cases are among the most expensive a county can face,” said Skye Lazaro, a criminal defense attorney. “They cost multiple times more than a regular prosecution and defense of a non-capital case.”
Lazaro explained that death penalty cases require highly specialized Rule 8-qualified attorneys, along with more experts, more investigations, and extra legal safeguards. Contract records obtained through a GRAMA request show just how quickly those costs add up. For Carter’s case, defense attorneys are capped at $200,000, with another $140,000 available for investigators and specialists. Jayne’s defense carries a similar price tag.
“The $200,000 is just for billable attorney hours,” Lazaro said. “Then you have to add all the additional expenses, and that’s in both agreements.”
So why didn’t Utah County seek help from the state’s Indigent Aggravated Murder Defense Fund, a resource already used by more than 20 of Utah’s 29 counties? According to Utah County Commissioner Amelia Powers Gardner, they tried to. Gardner, who described the fund like an insurance pool for counties, said the county commission saw the need and applied in June 2024, but the application went nowhere.
“When we submitted our application, it was just never accepted,” she said. According to Gardner, someone outside of Utah County gave incorrect information to the state Indigent Defense Commission, claiming the county had nine pending capital cases, when there were only four.
“They were told that letting Utah County join would bankrupt their fund,” she said. “The arguments against us were misrepresented, and we never got a chance to clarify them.”
But the fund’s executive director, Matthew Barraza, disputed that version of events. In a written statement, he said the application was never rejected. They were simply waiting on Utah County to respond to follow-up questions. “There was never any official decision, as we were waiting for their response,” Barraza wrote.
Had the county joined, the cost would have been substantial up front. About $1 million to cover its share for the previous two years and 2024, with an estimated $350,000 annual contribution after that.
Gardner said the county had already budgeted for it. “We had set aside the million dollars to pay into that pool,” she said. “But we ended up having to use that money to hire counsel to represent those cases.”
Looking at the costs to join the fund and the budgets of the cases, it appears Utah County taxpayers would have saved a significant amount of money had the county joined the fund in 2024. Something Lazaro confirmed, adding, “If these three cases go to trial through a penalty phase where the death penalty is elected, I think we can be reasonably certain that we would exceed those numbers.
_____
Utah
National Political Scrutiny of Cloud Seeding Looms Over Utah
-
Vermont1 week agoNorthern Lights to dazzle skies across these US states tonight – from Washington to Vermont to Maine | Today News
-
New Jersey1 week agoPolice investigate car collision, shooting in Orange, New Jersey
-
West Virginia1 week ago
Search for coal miner trapped in flooded West Virginia mine continues for third day
-
Seattle, WA1 week agoSoundgarden Enlist Jim Carrey and Seattle All-Stars for Rock Hall 2025 Ceremony
-
Business7 days agoDeveloper plans to add a hotel and hundreds of residences to L.A. Live
-
World1 week ago
The deadly car explosion in New Delhi is being investigated under an anti-terrorism law
-
Business2 days ago
Fire survivors can use this new portal to rebuild faster and save money
-
Washington, D.C1 week agoBarack Obama surprises veterans on honor flight to DC ahead of Veterans Day