A 20-year-old UCLA student is suing two California doctors, alleging they rushed her into a gender transition without providing adequate information about the risks or consequences. Kaya Clementine Breen filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, naming Dr Johanna Olson-Kennedy, Dr Scott Mosser, and St. Francis Memorial Hospital as defendants.
The lawsuit claims that Dr Olson-Kennedy, who oversees the largest transgender youth clinic in the US at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, diagnosed Breen with gender dysphoria during their first meeting, shortly after Breen’s 12th birthday. According to the suit, Olson-Kennedy recommended puberty blockers at this initial consultation, followed by further treatments including hormones and a double mastectomy by age 14.
Breen argues that the medical professionals concealed critical information about the long-term effects and risks of these treatments while overstating their efficacy. The suit claims this led to irreversible physical changes and significant mental distress, including regret over her transition.
Supreme Court Hears Landmark Transgender Rights Case
On 4 December 2024, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in
United States v. Skrmetti
, a pivotal case challenging Tennessee’s 2023 law that bans gender-affirming medical care—including puberty blockers and hormone therapy—for transgender minors.
Key Arguments Presented
- Plaintiffs’ Position: The plaintiffs, comprising transgender adolescents and their families, contend that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argue that the Tennessee law discriminates on the basis of sex and gender identity, infringing constitutional rights.
- Defence’s Position: Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice defended the statute, asserting that the state has the authority to regulate medical treatments for minors, especially those deemed experimental or potentially harmful.
Justices’ Reactions
The Court’s conservative justices appeared inclined to uphold the state’s ban, suggesting deference to state legislatures on such matters. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated a preference for allowing states to set their own policies regarding medical treatments for minors.
Conversely, liberal justices expressed concerns about potential discrimination. Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted parallels between the state’s arguments and those historically used to justify racial discrimination, questioning the law’s constitutionality.
Implications of the Case
The Court’s decision, expected by early summer 2025, could have far-reaching effects on transgender rights across the United States. A ruling in favour of Tennessee may embolden other states to enact similar bans, potentially restricting access to gender-affirming care for minors nationwide. Conversely, a decision against the ban could affirm and protect the rights of transgender youth to access necessary medical treatments.
Public Response
The case has garnered significant public attention, with advocates on both sides demonstrating outside the Supreme Court during the proceedings. Supporters of transgender rights emphasise the importance of access to gender-affirming care for the well-being of transgender youth, while opponents raise concerns about the appropriateness and safety of such treatments for minors.
The intersection of this high-profile legal battle and Breen’s lawsuit has further underscored the complexity and polarisation surrounding gender-affirming care for minors in the US.
