20 AGs versus the AMA

"[Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall] was joined in the letter by attorneys general from 

Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia."

(That's 20 states in all.)

https://www.alabamaag.gov/attorney-general-marshall-time-for-the-american-medical-association-to-follow-the-evidence-and-halt-support-for-hormonal-interventions-for-children/

That demonstrates a stark partisan divide!

That 2026-02-23 letter from the 20 attorneys general sets up a very interesting dynamic:

Top level lawyers versus top-level doctors.

A clash of professionals, at the intersection of law and medicine.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

(My expectation is that the AMA will offer a face-saving compromise, after consultation with THEIR lawyers.)

The letter cites at length differing views within the medical community on "gender-affirming care",

then states in its paragraph 17 several legal issues these differing views raise:

"Thus, while we hope to avoid a formal investigation under our consumer protection laws, 

we do have concerns that the AMA may be violating those laws. 

Under Alabama law, for instance, it is unlawful for an organization 

1. to cause “confusion or misunderstanding as to the … sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods of services,” Ala. Code § 8-19-5(2); 

2. to represent “that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, … uses, benefits, or qualities that they do not have,” id. § 8-19-5(5); 

3. to represent “that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade … if they are of another,” id. § 8-19-5(7); or 

4. to engage “in any other unconscionable, false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce,” id. § 8-19-5(27)."

(prefix numbers added).

Definitely something for the lawyers to hash out, the meaning and applicability of all those words.

Again, the question will be how much the AMA wants to fight this issue. 

There are evidently some activists who really, really want all this transgender stuff, 

who believe that the risks of these medical inteventions (not to mention the cost of paying for them) are worth it,

and who want to keep the AMA involved in this fight.

Back to the letter:

"We [attorneys general] thus request that you clarify some issues regarding the AMA’s position on 

the provision of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria. 

Please answer the following [14] questions and provide explanations or additional information as pertinent:"

And here are some of those questions:

"1. Does the AMA endorse or otherwise recommend to providers or patients 

the WPATH Standards of Care 8? 

Why or why not? 

2. Does the AMA view the WPATH Standards of Care 8 

as evidence-based, reliable, and consistent with the best practices of evidence-based medicine?  

...

11. How did the AMA decide to join the amicus briefs in United States v. Skrmetti and other cases 

in which the AMA told courts that 

the WPATH and Endocrine Society guidelines were evidence-based and well-accepted and that 

the provision of transitioning procedures to minors was safe and effective at treating gender dysphoria and improving well-being?"

As I said, I think the AMA will realize this is a public relations disaster, and seek a graceful way out of this mess.

Do they really want for @queersurgeon to be the face of the AMA?

From Dr. Kildare to @queersugeon?

The biggest issue is that 

major medical societies have not merely accepted, but explicitly endorsed, 

what many regard as clearly and unequivocally evil.