The Biden Justice Department on Dec. 4 challenged before the Supreme Court a Tennessee law that bans the use of puberty blockers and hormones for gender-transition treatments in minors on the grounds that it unlawfully discriminates based on sex.
The court’s decision will be consequential in the 24 states with these restrictions, but it won’t resolve the crux of the debate over pediatric gender medicine: whether, as the plaintiffs argued, the treatments can be lifesaving or, as some global health authorities have determined, the evidence is too thin to conclude that they are beneficial and the risks are not well-understood.
Multiple European health authorities have reviewed the available evidence and concluded that it was “very low certainty,” “lacking” and “limited by methodological weaknesses.” Last week, Britain banned the use of puberty blockers indefinitely due to safety concerns.
The failure to adequately assess these treatments gives Tennessee reason to worry about them — and legal room to restrict them. We have serious reservations when states make decisions about minors’ medical care, rather than leaving them to parents. But in the absence of clear data — and with the possibility of significant publication bias or researchers massaging their results — parents might not have adequate information.
No matter how the court rules, though, the federal government should supply the missing evidence at the heart of this dispute.