The American Medical Association is condemning the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Tennessee’s ban on transgender procedures for minors, insisting that these controversial interventions are essential medical care. The AMA claims the ruling threatens the doctor-patient relationship and interferes with clinical decisions.
Key Facts:
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tennessee’s ban on transgender procedures for minors, citing no violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
- AMA President Dr. Bobby Mukkamala called the ruling “disappointing” and warned it invites harmful government interference in medicine.
- The AMA has long supported transgender interventions for minors, including drugs and surgeries labeled “gender-affirming care.”
- In 2023, the AMA passed a resolution opposing criminal penalties for those providing or receiving transgender-related treatments.
- The AMA supported Dr. Rachel Levine’s nomination under the Biden administration, highlighting her commitment to gender-related medical interventions.
The Rest of The Story:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee’s law banning transgender medical interventions for minors is constitutional, stating the measure does not violate equal protection rights.
The decision was met with strong disapproval from the American Medical Association, which released a statement shortly after the ruling.
“The American Medical Association is disappointed in today’s decision that opens the door to further intrusion into patient care and harmful government interference into the practice of medicine,” said newly appointed AMA President Dr. Bobby Mukkamala.
The AMA argues that medical decisions should be left to doctors and patients, not legislatures.
Mukkamala said treatment decisions should be “based on individual patient needs and in accordance with medical evidence and the standards of good medical practice.”
He asserted that the ruling threatens the foundational principles of medicine by politicizing care.
The organization has consistently advocated for transgender procedures, including hormone treatments and surgeries for minors, framing these practices as essential and affirming.
It has also promised to resist policies that penalize patients, families, or providers involved in such treatments.
The American Medical Association is FURIOUS with the Supreme Court in the wake of United States v. Skrmetti.
The AMA wants doctors to be able to sexually mutilate children. Unconscionable. pic.twitter.com/8XtMLnhT9x
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) June 19, 2025
Commentary:
This response from the AMA is hardly surprising.
For years, the organization has moved away from evidence-based, common-sense approaches to medicine and into the realm of ideology.
Despite the controversial and irreversible nature of these procedures on children, the AMA continues to frame them as standard care—ignoring growing concern from parents, practitioners, and legislators across the country.
Instead of questioning why children are being prescribed powerful hormone treatments or undergoing irreversible surgeries, the AMA defends these practices under the guise of patient rights.
Yet, the deeper issue lies in the financial and political ties that seem to be guiding their agenda.
Pharmaceutical companies profit from puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
Insurance companies process these claims.
Hospitals and doctors collect revenue from surgeries and ongoing treatments.
It’s a lucrative cycle disguised as compassion.
And the AMA, with its broad influence, plays a central role in pushing this approach as the medical norm—regardless of long-term consequences.
The organization’s opposition to legal limits, like Tennessee’s law, ignores the reality that these treatments are experimental at best and life-altering at worst.
Many of the drugs used for “gender-affirming care” were not originally designed for children or for gender dysphoria.
Yet, they’re being administered with little long-term study, and the fallout is only beginning to be understood.
What’s truly at stake is the safety and well-being of children.
The AMA should be leading efforts to protect kids from harm, not advocating policies that fast-track them toward permanent medical interventions before they’re old enough to understand the consequences.
Instead of embracing a cautious, evidence-based model of care—one that might include mental health support or a “wait and see” approach—the AMA continues to promote a radical view that affirms every desire without critical evaluation.
That’s not medicine.
That’s ideology in a lab coat.
The Bottom Line:
The AMA’s outrage over the Supreme Court’s decision is part of a larger trend of politicized medicine.
Rather than reevaluating the growing risks associated with transgender procedures for minors, the organization has doubled down on defending these controversial practices.
This ruling doesn’t just uphold Tennessee’s law—it pushes back against a powerful institution that has prioritized profit and ideology over caution and care.
Read Next
– Trump Admin Reverse Course, Will Continue Immigration Raids on Farms, Hotels And Restaurants
– Proposed California Law Would Make it a Crime For Federal Agents to Wear Masks in The State
– Federal Judge Hands President Trump Victory Over Columbia University
