National Family Group Condemns American Medical Association’s ‘Ethics’ Journal’s Support for Taxpayer-Funded Uterus Transplants in Biological Men

The American Family Association (AFA) issued an alert Wednesday urging Americans to sign its petition that demands the American Medical Association (AMA) “do no harm” by ending its support for taxpayer-funded “unnatural and irreversible gender-modifying procedures,” such as uterus transplants from dead women for biological men to improve their “mental health.”

The petition, which, at the time of publication, had collected over 25,000 signers, cites a paper, published in June in AMA’s Journal of Ethics that AFA asserted is “driven with political and social activism.”

“Suggesting that taxpayers subsidize uterus transplants on biological men is irresponsible, irrelevant, and immaterial to the issue of elective medical procedures,” the petition states. “I urge the AMA to stop asking me to pay for them, and to strongly consider the consequences of unnatural and irreversible gender-modifying procedures that disfigure the human body.”

“Should Uterus Transplantation for Transwomen and Transmen Be Subsidized?” asks the title of the AMA paper, written by Illinois University College of Medicine philosophy professor Timothy F. Murphy, Ph.D., and University of Texas medical student Kelsey Mumford.

The article proposes that while uterus transplants from living and deceased donors for biological women with significant infertility issues have proven successful, “interest in the procedure is likely to extend beyond cisgender women.”

“Among those likely to be interested in UTx [uterus transplantation] are transwomen who want to gestate their own children, transwomen who want uterus transplants to consolidate their identities but not to gestate children, some transmen who want to gestate their own children, and cismen wanting to gestate children of their own.”

The authors go on to suggest that “transwomen who want to gestate children” or “who want to consolidate identity” have plausible rationales for government subsidies of these procedures to improve their mental health:

Transwomen lack a trait (the ability to bear children) that may cause them to experience psychological dissonance in a way that undermines their health and well-being. The lack of a uterus also closes off the prospect of gestating a child in a way that is available to women as a class. It follows that lack of a uterus is an obstacle to full participation in the social goods attached to women’s identity.

Similarly, the authors claim that “transwomen who want to consolidate identity” may benefit psychologically from a uterus transplant to counteract the “harm, threats of harm, and social discrimination” that come with their naturally masculine appearance.

“Facial feminization can significantly diminish that adversity,” the paper states. “Genital modification can also be important in helping people secure relationships consistent with their gender.”

The authors state that, even if taxpayer-funded subsidies for uterus transplants are limited, “the case could be made that no moral obstacle stands in the way of justifying subsidies for UTx for some transwomen and transmen, just as there seems to be no fully persuasive argument against gestating a child via UTx.”

“Rather than funding objective medical studies on transgender medicine, the AMA has chosen activist positions on this delicate topic,” Dr. Martin Makary, professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, recently reacted to the Washington Examiner regarding the AMA paper.  “Why don’t they fund a study on the 10-year regret rate of children who undergo transitioning surgery? What is the suicide rate among those who undergo aggressive hormone or surgical treatment versus long-term talk therapy?”

Makary added he finds it odd that AMA would devote time to consideration of uterus transplants for transgender individuals given the abundance of medical issues affecting the majority of Americans.

Additionally, he observed the paradox of the proposal:

The irony of the AMA’s focus on promoting uterus transplants in biologic men is that other gender-affirming treatments they push for are making children permanently infertile. The AMA leadership’s belief that children can simply pick a gender as they do an ice cream flavor lacks scientific support.

AFA calls these proposals “unreasonable and foolish.”

“[T]he American Medical Association has basically exchanged the Hippocratic Oath for social and partisan activism,” the family organization states. “Americans have always expected doctors to follow the adage, ‘First, do no harm.’”

The AMA reportedly told the Washington Examiner it has no official policy on uterus transplantation.

Nevertheless, Emilie Kao, senior counsel and vice president of advocacy strategy with Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote in early August at Public Discourse that the transgender movement’s “house of cards is falling,” largely due to an increasing number of doctors, patients, and whistleblowers urging others to call out establishment medical organizations that leftist activists have now infiltrated.

In her essay, Kao focuses on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which recently reaffirmed its support for providing children with transgender hormones and surgeries – so called “gender-affirming care” – while it also announced a plan to review the medical research on the life-altering treatments.

Despite what Kao describes as Europe’s “U-Turn” on surgical and hormonal medical interventions for gender dysphoric children, AAP Chief Executive Mark Del Monte told the New York Times that his board “has confidence that the existing evidence is such that the current policy is appropriate.”

“At the same time, the board recognized that additional detail would be helpful here,” he said, alluding to the stated plan of reviewing the medical literature.

Kao explains the medical establishment was also complicit with the eugenics movement of the 20th century, a fact that “should have led to serious evidence-based inquiry before subjecting another vulnerable population to irreversible harm.”

Nevertheless, she asserts that “under the weight of scientific evidence, international skepticism, and firsthand testimonies from former patients, their house of cards is tumbling down.”

– – –

Susan Berry, PhD is national education editor at The Star News Network. Email tips to [email protected]




Related posts