“Due to the recent executive order issued on January 28, 2025 Phoenix Children’s is indefinitely pausing gender-affirming medical care for children under the age of 19,” read a notice issued by the hospital to patient portals involved in their gender transition program.
Like Trump’s other executive orders, the president’s mandate ending gender transitions for children quickly faced legal challenges.
As a result of its pause on the gender transition program, Phoenix Children’s Hospital arranged for its pharmacists to wean program children off of any puberty blockers or hormones.
On Monday, parents also received letters from providers Vinny Chulani and Ashish Patel advising of the end to puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy.
The hospital marketed its Gender Support Program as the most comprehensive in the state. The program offered consultation for parenting strategies, endocrinology consults, and referrals to mental health providers and specialists for various procedures.
These consultations would explore the use of puberty-suppressing medications as well as masculinizing and feminizing hormonal therapies. The hospital also provided support and advocacy for social transition endeavors in schools and the public through legal name and gender marker changes on identifying documents.
At one time, the hospital affiliated its Gender Support Program with the Arizona Trans Youth and Parent Organization.
Public details of the program in recent years became less available. After AZ Free Newscovered Phoenix Children’s Hospital’s gender transition program at length, the hospital scrubbed more public information of its program from its website.
The extension of transgender ideology to children offered a sort of community for parents affirming the gender dysphoria of their children. Parents of children who underwent gender transition procedures offered by Phoenix Children’s Hospital would join the Gender Proud Patient and Family Advisory Council.
Activist groups issued a statement lamenting Phoenix Children’s Hospital’s decision as a “betrayal” to their cause.
“Gender-affirming care has been shown to significantly improve the mental, emotional, and physical health of transgender youth,” said the coalition. “To remove access to this care in Arizona is a direct attack on the trans community and the families who have fought tirelessly for their children’s well-being.”
Those who signed onto the statement: Tami Staas, the Arizona Trans Youth and Parent Organization; Carol Tappenden, the Education Action Alliance (formerly GLSEN Arizona); Brandie Reiner, NASW Arizona; Dustin Griswold, Family Planning Associates Medical Group; Jeanne Casteen, Secular AZ; Civia Tamarkin, National Council of Jewish Women Arizona; Nate Rhoton, one-n-ten; Grace Chenal, SIGA Therapy; Darrell Hill, ACLU of Arizona; Lynn Davis, Rabbi Joseph H. Gumbiner Community Action Project; Lori Shepherd, Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center; Athena Salman, Reproductive Freedom for All Arizona; Maria Ingalla, psychiatric mental health nurse and practitioner; and Jodi Liggett, Arizona Center for Women’s Advancement.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Exactly a century ago this year, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, recognized the right of parents to direct the education of their children, writing that “[t]he fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children . . . The child is not the mere creature of the state.” Today, just as they did a century ago, parents rely on the courts to serve as a backstop against abusive government policy.
Sadly, some courts in America are shutting the door of justice in the face of parents seeking to vindicate their rights and the rights of their children. In a case out of Wisconsin called Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District in the Seventh Circuit, the federal court of appeals with jurisdiction over cases arising in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, parents challenged the school district’s policy directing school officials to hide a child’s “social gender transition” from their parents. As the school told its employees, “parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities.That knowledge must be earned.”
Incredibly, the Seventh Circuit found that the parents’ harm in that case was merely speculative. Apparently, since plaintiffs must show harm to have standing to sue, parents must wait until they find out that their son’s school has been helping him dress as a girl and use the girls’ restroom for six months before they can challenge the policy.
The Supreme Court chose not to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in that case. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a short dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, explaining that the parents’ harm is not speculative and that “some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions.”
Nor is this an isolated incident of judges dodging the controversy of gender ideology. The Fourth Circuit, the appeals court with jurisdiction over Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, came to the same conclusion in John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education. A district court in Ohio did the same in Doe v. Pine-Richland School District.
Parents’ fundamental rights to direct the upbringing of their children, and the right of children to be free from ideological indoctrination by school officials, depends on courts that are willing to protect those rights. That is why Advancing American Freedom is filing an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to take up Blake Warner’s challenge to an Eleventh Circuit rule which effectively requires parents to hire a lawyer before they can represent their children’s interests in court. Specifically, while people can bring their own claims in court without a lawyer, and parents can sue on behalf of their children, the Eleventh and some other courts have found that parents cannot sue on behalf of their children without hiring a lawyer. While Mr. Warner’s claim is not related to gender ideology, his challenge to this rule is essential because his success would ensure that parents who are unable to afford an attorney can still seek judicial protection for the rights of their children.
On Jan. 29, President Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, ordered the removal of federal funding from schools that engage in “social transitions of a minor student” and directed the attorney general to work with state and local officials “to enforce the law and file appropriate actions” against school officials who “facilitate the social transition of a minor student.” Trump’s order is important but know that gender ideologues will undoubtedly stage massive resistance. Parents must remain vigilant, and courts must begin to take their claims seriously. The Supreme Court should entrench parents’ rights by taking Mr. Warner’s case and striking down the counsel mandate.
The National Education Association (NEA), a teachers’ union and the nation’s largest labor union, has continued its promotion of gender transitions for children.
NEA posted the guide by Advocates for Youth on Transgender Day of Remembrance last week. The guide was published last year.
The guide claims that humans are “assigned” their sex at birth based on reproductive traits (genitalia, chromosomes, and hormones), and that while everyone has a gender identity, only some align with their reproductive traits. The guide claims that children inherently know their gender identity as young as 18 months to three years.
Parents, per the guide, shouldn’t be the sole decision-makers about their children. Those parents that rely on information conflicting with or opposing transgender ideology are relying on “misinformation and falsehoods.” Instead, parents should accept information which affirms transgender, non-binary, and gender-expansive youth (TNGE).
“Parents have everything they need to begin the journey of supporting their TNGE children,” said the guide. “When making decisions for their children, many parents search for information and resources to support their efforts, but some of what is readily available is misinformation and falsehoods. Parents who are interested in seeking out additional help to support their TNGE children are encouraged to do so.”
As for the role of educators, the guide says that they should “proactively teach the entire school community about gender identity, gender expansiveness, and celebrate LGBTQ history and culture.”
The guide also says that schools should affirm students in their gender identity by using their chosen name and preferred pronouns, regardless of their legal name; ensure students have unencumbered access to their preferred gender-specific facilities such as bathrooms and locker rooms; and ensure students may participate in their preferred gender-specific extracurricular activities and athletics.
Per the guide, those who oppose transgender ideology, especially in children, qualify as “extremists” who put out disinformation.
The guide puts out a number of other contested claims, such as: puberty blockers are lifesaving, not harmful; LGBTQ ideologies contribute to healthy diversity; transgenderism isn’t a mental illness;
The NEA affiliate in Arizona — the Arizona Education Association (AEA) — has over 22,000 school employees as members (in addition to teachers, their members include librarians, custodians, cafeteria workers, and counselors).
Like the NEA, AEA has actively worked to foster transgenderism and advance other LGBTQ+ ideologies in minors.
AEA successfully advocated for the repeal of the 28-year-old “no promo homo” law prohibiting the discussion of homosexuality during HIV/AIDS instruction in schools. The law prohibited discussion that “promotes a homosexual lifestyle,” “portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle,” and “suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.”
School should be a place where everyone is able to be their full self. Thank you to everyone who joined the rally in Peoria tonight in solidarity with trans educators and community members! pic.twitter.com/xYqKKfZtQS
AEA also fought against legislative efforts to require the use of bathrooms based on biological sex, and prohibiting access based on gender identity.
Some great news today — #SCR1013, the bill attacking trans youth and educators, is DEAD! Shout-out to all the educators who contacted their legislators to stop this awful discriminatory legislation, and to everyone who shared their story so courageously! https://t.co/M8fH5qrvB5
The union also supported gender transitions for children as young as preschoolers, promoting a parent in 2017 who transitioned his four-year-old son into his “daughter.”
In the corridors of education, a seismic shift is underway. Local superintendents, entrusted with shaping the educational landscape, are being influenced by a woke agenda that transcends their official roles. Behind this phenomenon lies the shadowy hand of leftist interests, channeled through national and state chapters of the School Superintendent Association (AASA), driving an agenda that reaches deep into the heart of public education.
Recent events in El Paso County, Colorado, underscore the extent of this influence. Allegations have surfaced of a superintendent employing intimidation tactics, supported by legal counsel, to suppress reports of a sexualized gender focus in classrooms. Such incidents reveal a troubling trend of silencing dissent and stifling transparency in the pursuit of ideological conformity.
At the national level, the AASA is actively seeking to modify the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), often hailed as the Parents Bill of Rights (PBOR). While PPRA mandates parental notification of policies and surveys, the proposed amendments could erode parental consent requirements, potentially leading to increased control over data collection by schools, to the detriment of parental rights and oversight.
Arizona provides a stark example of the consequences of such ideological influence. In Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD), Superintendent Scott Menzel’s equity-driven agenda has resulted in a dramatic reallocation of funds away from academics toward social support infrastructure. The repercussions are profound, with declining academic achievement, escalating violence, and growing student dissatisfaction.
Menzel’s emphasis on Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) has permeated every aspect of district life, reshaping classroom dynamics and disciplinary measures. Yet, amidst the proliferation of gender identity and sexuality clubs, concerns about academic focus and student safety persist.
Similar challenges echo across Arizona’s educational landscape. In Flagstaff, revelations about controversial sex education curriculum content have sparked parental concern, while in Mesa, allegations of clandestine aid to students undergoing gender transitions have led to legal battles and ethical scrutiny.
The reluctance of some superintendents to address concerns about new survey questions addressing social-emotional learning and sex education, further exacerbates tensions and raises questions about accountability.
Amidst these local debates, broader concerns loom about the influence of ideological agendas within educational institutions. The rise of what critics term the “Communist Whole/Community School philosophy” underscores the need for vigilance and a return to fundamental principles of education.
In this landscape of change, House Bill 2717 proposes a radical overhaul of the educational system in Mohave and La Paz County. Advocates argue for increased efficiency and cost savings, but questions linger about the potential concentration of power in the hands of county superintendents and its impact on local autonomy and accountability.
As parents and residents, it is incumbent upon us to remain vigilant and hold school officials and school board members accountable. The future of education hinges not only on academic excellence but also on safeguarding the principles of transparency, parental rights, and proper legal oversight in our schools.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government. She’s served at the director level at Americans for Prosperity-Colorado, FreedomWorks, and currently with Arizona Women of Action.
Mesa Public Schools (MPS) faces a lawsuit for policies resulting in the secret transitioning of children’s genders and tracking their gender transition journeys while restricting parental knowledge or consent.
The amended lawsuit, filed on Tuesday by America First Legal (AFL) on behalf of MPS Governing Board member Rachel Walden and the mother of one alleged victim, accused MPS of unlawfully hiding policy and evidence of their transitioning of children from parents. Arizona’s Constitution and Parents’ Bill of Rights acknowledge that it is the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
The amended complaint contained new information revealing that at least one MPS school maintained a “parent concealment cheat sheet”: a spreadsheet tracking the gender journeys of over a dozen students as well as information on which of their parents were supportive or needed to be kept in the dark.
/1 🚨BREAKING – America First Legal Sues Mesa Public Schools in Amended Lawsuit, Adding Mother Whose Daughter’s Gender Was Transitioned Without Parental Knowledge or Consent, and After Obtaining New Evidence Proving Scale of Deception
MPS policy of transitioning children without parental knowledge or consent, the Transgender Support Plan (TSP), dates back to 2015, according to the lawsuit. The policy asks the children for permission to notify their parents of their gender transition: should the child decline, MPS requires its employees to keep the transition hidden from parents.
MPS has long denied the allegations that TSP occurs without parental notification. Last June, MPS Superintendent Andi Fourlis dismissed the allegations in a public letter.
According to a once-public document students were made to fill out to initiate a TSP, the Support Plan for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students, students were given the option to deny permission of disclosure of their gender transitions to their parents. MPS removed that support plan from public view following community outcry in 2022. The district then issued an updated version of the support plan with a loophole to parental disclosure: name and gender changes were to be requested through Synergy — the district’s online database — in order for parents to be notified. Should Synergy not be updated, parents would not be notified.
AFL noted that this loophole contradicted Fourlis’ claim, which ultimately resulted in the gender transition of the eighth-grade girl at the heart of AFL’s lawsuit, Megan Doe, to a male by school staff without the knowledge or consent of Doe’s mother, Jane.
“[S]chool employees encouraged Megan to lie to her parents and helped her to do so, which harmed the parent-child relationship and delayed Megan from receiving needed mental health counseling,” stated AFL.
Per the lawsuit, Jane’s attempts to learn of what had happened to her daughter were rebuffed by school staff and leadership in 2022. The principal at her daughter’s school refused to disclose further records or information about the conversations school staff had with her daughter, and refused to comply with Jane’s demand to cease referring to her daughter as a boy and by a boy’s name.
“The principal admitted that school personnel intentionally had not changed Megan’s name in the [Synergy] system to avoid any notification being sent to Jane and that there were no plans to change Megan’s name in the system,” stated the lawsuit. “The principal told Jane that even if Jane had asked to be notified about any name changes, pronoun changes, or other choices related to a transgender identity by her child, it was official MPS policy not to tell parents and that school personnel would not notify Jane about any further developments related to these issues.”
It was only after this ordeal that Jane discovered Megan’s struggles and, reportedly, was able to resolve them through conversations with her mother and a psychotherapist. The lawsuit stated that this maternal intervention resulted in Megan’s issues being “completely resolved” within a month.
“[Megan] is now very comfortable presenting herself as a female and using her given name and is thriving in high school,” stated AFL.
AFL claimed to also have discovered, upon information and belief, that MPS employees regularly ignored the requirement to notify parents after students began transitioning genders in school.
AFL further issued evidence of a school counselor, Emily Wulff at Kino Junior High, instructing school staff in an email last March to not disclose gender transitions to anyone outside those allowed within the support plan. Wulff’s email made no mention of parental notification.
In a follow-up email, Wulff clarified that the purpose of the nondisclosure policy was to “protect outing students who are not ready to come out to peers or family members.” Wulff specified that the support plan was designed to keep gender transitions a secret from certain families.
“The main takeaways would be to make sure when contacting home to use their preferred name home,” wrote Wulff. “For example, if I have a student that goes by Emily and she/her pronouns that I need to call home for, and in their plan it says to use their birth name and biological pronouns home, [be] sure you do not out the student by using their preferred name and pronouns they use at school.”
Last March, Wulff also directed school employees to keep up a spreadsheet tracking the gender transition journeys of 17 students, titled “Pronoun Preference,” with notes declaring whether a student’s parents and family were aware of their transition.
For three students whose parents were documented as “unaware,” Wulff’s spreadsheet directed school employees to hide their preferred names and pronouns. For another seven students whose parents were documented as somewhat aware or partially supportive, the spreadsheet instructed staff to use the students’ birth names and gender to mask the extent of their transition.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
