overboard

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles is the preeminent center for pediatric medicine in Southern California. For three decades, it’s also been one of the world’s leading destinations for trans care for minors. Don’t take my word for it: CHLA boasts about its record of providing “high-quality, evidence-based, medically essential care for transgender and gender-diverse youth, young adults, and their families.”

Earlier this month, it abruptly ended all that, telling its staff in a meeting that the Center for Transyouth Health and Development would be shutting down. (My daughter was, until this announcement, a patient at the center.)

Did some new medical breakthrough, some unexpected research drive the decision to cut off care for roughly 2,500 patients with no warning? No. It came, the hospital said, after “a thorough legal and financial assessment of the increasingly severe impacts of recent administrative actions and proposed policies.”

In other words, the hospital caved. In advance.

CHLA made the move a week before the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in the United States vs. Skrmetti, which upheld a Tennessee law that bans most gender-affirming care for minors. More than 20 states have passed similar laws that prevent trans minors from accessing many different forms of medical care. The decision essentially shields those laws from future legal challenges.

But the Supreme Court ruling had nothing to do with CHLA’s decision. There is no such law in California.

Why, then, without any court order or law, did the center suddenly close, leaving so many young patients in need of doctors, medications and procedures? You can probably guess the answer.

Pressure from the Trump administration threatened the hospital with severe repercussions if it continued to serve these patients. One form of pressure arrived in a May 28 letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, signed by its administrator, the former TV host Dr. Mehmet Oz. He announced that his agency would seek financial records on a range of gender-affirming care procedures from several dozen hospitals.

Being faced with the choice of discontinuing care for an entire class of patients or battling the administration over access to financial records is not a dilemma any doctor wants to face. To be clear, this is not a debate over medical science or proper care for trans youth. CHLA followed the science — until it didn’t. This is a debate over ideology about who is deserving of medical care.

In the past few months, we have seen powerful law firms, large corporations and universities forced to contend with difficult bargains. Settle with an administration that has singled you out? Or take the battle to court?

In February, when Children’s Hospital announced that it would stop taking on new patients in its Transyouth Center, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sternly reminded them that they had a legal obligation to continue to provide this care. The hospital quickly reversed course.

That’s why the recent choice of the CHLA board marks a huge shift that could potentially affect care for not just trans youth patients but so many others as well.

Because what the board of CHLA did was, in fact, a choice. Moreover, CHLA’s choice went against its own medical advice about the urgent need for such care. On its website, the hospital claims it was “immensely proud of this legacy of caring for young people on the path to achieving their authentic selves.”

When confronted with threats, the board chose to sacrifice the care of one group of patients in the hope that it could continue to care for others. Perhaps the board concluded that it was following a crude, utilitarian logic: denying the medical needs of some would allow it to provide for many more.

That’s not how I see it. In caving to blackmail, they have endorsed the administration’s bigotry. They have demonstrated that trans youth are expendable. The board has made it clear that this group of patients is not as deserving of care as others. When CHLA faced actual pressure, its own record of providing “high-quality, evidence-based, medically essential care” simply became too inconvenient.

This time, it was trans youth. Who will it be next time? Disabled children? Children born outside the U.S.? CHLA agreed to play the game rather than call it out for what it is.

As a journalist, I occasionally grant anonymity to a source. It’s not an action I take lightly. The decision means that if pressured, even when threatened with contempt of court, I will not reveal their identity. Thankfully, it’s never come to that for me, although other journalists have gone to jail to protect sources. If I were to break that pledge once, I could never in good conscience grant it again.

I now wonder how doctors at CHLA can ever look their young patients in the eye again and promise that, no matter what, they will fight for their care.

Gabriel Kahn is a professor of professional practice at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

Today we discuss presidential politics, window treatments and disasters of the natural and man-made variety.

Time for Gavin Newsom to start measuring those White House drapes.

Huh?

You know, president of the United States. I’m thinking something Earth-friendly, like recycled hemp.

Wait, what?

Did you catch the nationally televised speech the governor recently gave? The one about “democracy at a crossroads.”

I did.

It was a fine speech and the governor made some important points about President Trump’s reckless commandeering of California’s National Guard, his administration’s indiscriminate immigration raids and the wholly unnecessary dispatch of Marines to Los Angeles. (From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Venice Beach.)

Newsom was plenty justified in his anger and contempt. Trump, acting true to his flame-fanning fashion, turned what was a middling set of protests — nothing local law enforcement couldn’t handle — into yet another assault on our sorely tested Constitution.

Newsom’s speech certainly “met the moment,” to use one of his favorite phrases.

I’ll grant you that. Unlike a lot of extracurricular activities aimed at boosting his presidential prospects, Newsom was addressing a Trump-manufactured crisis unfolding right here at home. It was a moment that called for gubernatorial leadership.

Just the kind of leadership despondent Democrats need.

So it’s been said.

It’s not much of a leap to see Newsom leading the anti-Trump opposition clear to the White House!

Actually, that’s a bigger leap than it takes to clear the Grand Canyon.

Granted, Newsom’s speech received a lot of raves from Democrats across the country. Many are desperate for someone in a position of power to give voice to their blood-boiling, cranium-exploding rage against Trump and his many excesses. Newsom did a good job channeling those emotions and articulating the dangers of an imprudent president run amok.

But let’s not go overboard.

There is no lack of Democrats eager to take on Trump and become the face of the so-called resistance. There is no shortage of Democrats eyeing a 2028 bid for the White House. Those who run won’t be schlepping all the political baggage that Newsom has to tote.

Such as?

Rampant homelessness. An exploding budget deficit. Vast income inequality.

Plus, a lot of social policies that many Californians consider beneficent and broad-minded that, to put it mildly, others around the country consider much less so. Don’t get me wrong. I love California with all my heart and soul. But we have a lot of deep-seated problems and cultural idiosyncrasies that Newsom’s rivals — Democrat and Republican — would be only too happy to hang around his neck.

So let’s not get too caught up in the moment. The fundamentals of the 2028 presidential race haven’t changed based on a single — albeit well-received — speech. It’s still hard to see Democrats turning the party’s fate over to yet another nominee spawned in the liberal stew of San Francisco politics and campaigning with kooky California as a home address.

Stranger things have happened.

True.

That said, 2028 is a zillion political light years and countless news cycles away. First come the midterm elections in November 2026, giving voters their chance to weigh in on Trump and his actions. The verdict will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in 2028.

Well at least Newsom has brought his A-game to social media. His trolling of Trump is something to behold!

Whatever.

You’re not impressed?

I think it’s best to leave the snark to professionals.

I do, however, have some sympathy for the governor. It’s not easy dealing with someone as spiteful and amoral as the nation’s ax-grinder-in-chief.

Consider, for instance, the disaster relief money that fire-devastated Southern California is counting on. Helping the region in its time of desperate need shouldn’t be remotely political, or part of some red-vs.-blue-state feud. Historically, that sort of federal aid has never been.

But this is Trump we’re dealing with.

To his credit, Newsom tried making nice in the days and weeks following the January firestorm. He ignored the president’s provocations and held what was later described an an amicable session with Trump in the Oval Office. Their working relationship seemed to be a good one.

But few things last with the transactional Trump, save for his pettiness and self-absorption. Asked last week if his “recent dust-ups” with Newsom would impact the granting of wildfire relief, Trump said, “Yeah, maybe.”

He called Newsom incompetent, trotted out more gobbledygook about raking forests and then soliloquized on the nature of personal relationships. “When you don’t like somebody, don’t respect somebody, it’s harder for that person to get money if you’re on top,” Trump said.

Yeesh.

Responding in a posting on X, Newsom correctly noted, “Sucking up to the President should not be a requirement for him to do the right thing for the American people.”

Hard to argue with that.

Yet here we are.

The nation’s second-most populous city is occupied by National Guard and Marine troops. Thousands of people — displaced by disaster, their past lives gone up in smoke — are hostage to the whims of a peevish president who always puts his feelings first and cares nothing for the greater good.

The midterm election can’t come soon enough.