In the evolving post-Roe landscape of America, conservative moms express growing concerns over Planned Parenthood’s strategic shift. Instead of addressing the decline in abortion revenue, the organization is expanding its scope into “transgender hormone therapy,” a move raising eyebrows within conservative circles.

Recent trends highlight a noticeable surge in demand for these services. Current annual reports clearly indicate that a significant proportion of the nearly 600 Planned Parenthood centers have now integrated cross-sex hormone treatments. This represents a significant departure from the mere 32 centers offering such services back in 2016.

Analysis conducted in 2022 by the Heritage Foundation reveals that a substantial one-third to one-half of these centers are now venturing into the realm of gender-altering treatments. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood’s own reports indicate a striking 49% surge in what they term “gender-affirming care” within a single year.

Certain regions experience even more pronounced growth. For instance, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio boasts an astonishing 544% increase in visits related to “transgender services” from 2021 to 2022.

Proponents of these changes argue that the surge in individuals identifying as transgender or nonbinary is indicative of a more accepting cultural climate in America. However, this perspective seems challenged by the data. Even in areas with long-standing acceptance, such as Portland, the number of visits for “gender-affirming care” nearly quadrupled between 2021 and 2022. This suggests that factors beyond “increased acceptance” are at play.

Recent research delves into the underlying causes of gender distress, known as gender dysphoria. Influences such as parent-child conflicts, peer pressure, social media, and mental health history are all thought to contribute.

Amidst the ongoing search for definitive answers, conservative moms advocate for cautious progression. Rather than hastily embracing experimental medical interventions, exercising prudence is deemed a wise approach.

With an increasing number of individuals seeking gender-related treatments from Planned Parenthood and similar institutions, rigorous evaluation of the long-term benefits becomes paramount. While some patients might report short-term relief post-transition, there’s no empirical evidence supporting the superiority of these interventions over therapeutic solutions.

Moreover, a consensus is emerging that irreversible treatments may cause significant harm to those grappling with gender dysphoria. The adverse effects of cross-sex hormones, some of which are also employed in chemical castration, are severe, encompassing infertility, stunted growth, and heightened risks of depression, blood clots, and cancer.

Research conducted by Jay Greene at the Heritage Foundation, juxtaposing states allowing minors to receive hormone therapy sans parental consent with those that don’t, reveals disconcerting findings. Easy access to these drugs is correlated with an elevated risk of suicide, counter to claims that such interventions are life-saving.

Examining how other countries respond to the irreversible nature of “gender-affirming” hormone therapy and the less-than-ideal outcomes for post-treatment patients offers insights. Even traditionally liberal Western European nations like the U.K., Sweden, and Finland adopt stricter stances. Norway follows suit after systematic reviews found benefits not outweighing risks. This sets the United States apart as an outlier promoting affirmation without comprehensive evaluation.

Given the uncertainty enveloping the causes and appropriate treatment of gender dysphoria, conservative moms propose a step back from expanding transformative gender-transition services. Emphasis on deliberate consideration is urged. Several conservative states have implemented measures safeguarding minors from potentially harmful interventions, a path that more should tread. Additionally, the call to cease federal funding for gender-altering drugs and surgeries through programs such as Medicare and Tricare gains momentum.

Thankfully, proactive policymakers are making strides. Representative Dan Crenshaw from Texas introduces a bill withholding federal tax dollars from children’s hospitals providing gender hormone or surgical procedures to minors. The 2024 spending bill proposed by House Republicans advocates for excluding gender-transition services from Medicare and Tricare coverage.

Just as the Hyde Amendment safeguards against federal funding for abortions, a parallel safeguard is necessary to prevent taxpayers from supporting gender treatments with uncertain impacts on children.