Introduction
This article by ABC News detailing the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning certain forms of gender-affirming care for minors has raised concern among readers and legal experts alike. In particular, the article quotes the majority opinion stating that the law “treats everyone the same,” prompting readers to question whether a law restricting treatments predominantly sought by transgender youth can truly be considered neutral. We reviewed the article’s most consequential claims to assess accuracy, potential bias, and missing context.
Historical Context
Controversy around gender-affirming care for minors has intensified in the United States over the past five years. Starting in 2021, multiple state legislatures introduced bills restricting medical practices such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for individuals under 18. Tennessee’s SB1 became one of the first such laws to be passed and challenged in federal court. The recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti marks the high court’s first ruling affirming state authority to implement such bans, making it a watershed moment in the legal rights of transgender youth.
Fact-Check of Key Claims
Claim #1: The Tennessee law “treats everyone the same,” according to Chief Justice Roberts.
This claim lacks full context. While the literal text of Tennessee’s SB1 prohibits anyone under 18 from receiving puberty blockers or hormone therapy for the purpose of gender transition, it allows these same treatments for other medical reasons—including precocious puberty or delayed growth. This selective restriction applies only when the treatment is used to affirm a gender identity different from a child’s sex assigned at birth. That makes the law functionally discriminatory against transgender minors, despite its facial neutrality.
Multiple legal scholars, including those from Yale Law School and the ACLU, have pointed out that such laws constitute “sex-based classifications” under prior equal protection cases. Moreover, U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson initially found evidence that transgender minors are being treated differently under this law, despite its neutral wording. Therefore, while the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause does not forbid this approach, the claim that the law “treats everyone the same” is misleading in practical application.
Claim #2: “The science on the alleged benefits of the care is limited and evolving.”
This statement is partially true but omits key context. While research into the long-term outcomes of gender-affirming care in youth continues, the consensus among major American medical organizations—including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association—is that puberty blockers and hormone therapy are considered medically necessary and beneficial for many transgender adolescents.
These treatments have been in use for over a decade, and while data gaps exist, multiple peer-reviewed studies (such as those published in The Lancet and JAMA Pediatrics) associate gender-affirming care with significantly reduced rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among transgender youth. The characterization of the science as “limited” downplays the current medical consensus and may give a false impression of controversy where there is professional agreement.
Claim #3: “This is one of the most significant LGBTQ rulings to come from the Supreme Court.”
This claim is accurate. U.S. v. Skrmetti marks the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the legality of state laws banning gender-affirming care specifically for minors. Given its implications for future litigation and legislative efforts surrounding LGBTQ+ rights and medical autonomy, legal experts widely regard this as a landmark decision. While other LGBTQ-related rulings—such as Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage) and Bostock v. Clayton County (employment protections)—have dealt with adult rights, this case uniquely evaluates the intersection of age, medical access, and gender identity.
Claim #4: All major American medical associations endorse gender-affirming care for minors.
This statement is accurate. As of 2024, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association have all issued policy statements supporting access to developmentally-appropriate, gender-affirming care for minors. These endorsements are based on clinical guidelines that call for a comprehensive approach to transgender healthcare, including mental health counseling, family involvement, and ethical oversight.
Nonetheless, the article should have clarified that while medical consensus exists in the U.S., some European countries (including Sweden and the U.K.) have revised their guidelines amid calls for more long-term research. Failing to acknowledge this international dimension may give readers a partial view of the broader debate.
Conclusion
The ABC News article covers the Supreme Court’s decision with generally accurate facts but misses opportunities to fully contextualize key points, particularly surrounding the claim that Tennessee’s law affects all minors equally. This framing overlooks how the law uniquely impacts transgender youth by allowing the same medical procedures for non-transgender purposes. Additionally, while the article correctly notes medical support for gender-affirming care, it minimizes the strength of scientific consensus in favor of highlighting medical uncertainty. While the article doesn’t overtly display a clear bias, some readers may find the selective framing of medical debates and equal treatment language contributes to confusion around the law’s real-world effects.
Take Action Now
Want to stay informed and spot biased headlines in real time? Download the DBUNK App to access trusted, nonpartisan fact-checks and help stop the spread of misinformation.
Download the DBUNK App
