Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Gender-Change Promoters Facing New Headwinds for Their Agenda

This article originally appeared on

Guest by post by Bob Unruh 

Now market forces are putting the brakes on social contagion

The gender bending ideology, the scientifically impossible concept that males can become females or vice versa, has taken over America in recent years. Joe Biden has made it one of his top priorities to promote this ideology – even to having taxpayers fund it.


Often, leftist courts under the guise of various rights, such as equal rights and health care rights, have adopted the transgender ideology and many have blocked state-adopted limits on those dramatic surgeries, even to children, that leave their bodies mutilated.

But now a new force has surfaced, and it is putting the brakes on the social contagion.

It is the fact that insurance companies, fearful of massive liabilities that could spread years into the future, are reluctant to insure those facilities that provide those surgeries.

A report at ZeroHedge explains that “market forces “can “impose their own powerful form of regulation,” above and beyond any “regulation” that might come from government.

“Happily, we’re beginning to see market forces create a major impediment to the practice of irreparably altering the bodies of confused adolescents,” the report said. “Those forces have emerged in the form of soaring malpractice insurance premiums for clinics that use hormones, puberty blockers and surgeries to address gender-confused children. Many insurers are refusing to offer coverage at any price.”

The report cited the headwinds facing an organization called “The Project of the Quad Cities.”

The report said the Illinois company was ramping up on the border with Iowa, intending to cash in on “Iowa minors who could no longer receive gender-altering services in their own state after they were banned in March.”

Clinic spokesman Andy Rowe told reporters, “I didn’t anticipate that it was going to be a big deal” to obtain malpractice insurance.

Then one insurer turned the company down, And the second. And the third. And nearly a dozen more.

The report explained one willing insurer eventually was found, but the cost, which Rowe anticipated to be around $10,000 at most, actually was $50,000.

The report explained, “Insurers’ mounting unease comes as a growing number of suits are being filed by individuals against doctors they accuse of rushing them — as children — into permanently altering their bodies rather than addressing adolescent angst over puberty.”

One plaintiff is Isabelle Ayala, 20, who sued doctors in her Rhode Island case for being “a collection of actors who prioritized politics and ideology over children’s safety, health, and well-being.”

One defendant allegedly concluded during a single, 60-minute visit she should be given cross-sex hormones, ignoring factors like autism, ADHD and PTSD.

Some states, the report explained, have extended the statute of limitations for such cases from the typical couple of years to “15 years after minor patients turn 18.”

Mike Stinson, of the Medical Professional Liability Association, explained to Time, “If state laws increase the risk of civil liability for health professionals, premiums will be adjusted accordingly and appropriately to reflect the level of financial risk incurred by the insured.”

Among other cases already pending is one against University of Wisconsin surgeons who operated on a woman “without informed consent.”

The woman had “diagnosed herself with gender dysphoria,” a local report said, and the lawsuit now alleges malpractice as well as failure to obtain informed consent, and negligence by the hospital.

Activists have tried to force into state law and regulations the demand that “insurance plans” cover those chemical treatments and mutilating surgeries, and a pair of cases from North Carolina and West Virginia already is creating issues.

At the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Harvey Wilkinson expressed doubt.

“Why can’t a state decide that the money that could have been spent on coverage for transgender-related issues should instead be spent to provide greater coverage for cancer, stroke and heart attack victims?”

The Supreme Court has left unresolved whether deciding against coverage for transgender surgeries amounts to discrimination.

Copyright 2023 WND News Center


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!