The recent closure of the Children’s Hospital of Orange County (CHOC) Pediatric Gender Clinic on February 6, 2026, has become a focal point of intense debate in Southern California. The shutdown follows a series of aggressive federal actions by the Trump Administration aimed at ending medical gender transitions for minors across the United States.
What Happened with CHOC and the Trump Administration?
CHOC, along with its partner Rady Children’s Health, announced in early 2026 that it would cease providing gender-affirming medical care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for patients under 19.
- Federal Pressure: The decision was driven by new U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rules that threatened to bar hospitals from participating in Medicare and Medicaid if they continued these treatments for minors. Since nearly all U.S. hospitals rely on this federal funding, CHOC and other major institutions like Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (which closed its clinic in July 2025) opted to shutter their programs to protect their overall operations.
- Executive Orders: President Trump issued an executive order declaring it federal policy not to “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support” the medical transition of children.
- Legal Conflict: In response to the February 6 shutdown, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Rady Children’s Health, arguing the hospital violated its obligations to patients under state law, which protects access to such care.
Context: The Brenda Lebsack Facebook Post
Brenda Lebsack, a Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) trustee and retired teacher, has been a vocal critic of gender-affirming care in schools. She recently thanked the Trump Administration for the CHOC closure, citing concerns over:
- Parental Rights: Lebsack claims school districts failed to inform parents about the existence of the CHOC gender clinic despite mental health partnerships.
- CTA Policy: She referenced a 2020 California Teachers Association (CTA) business item that she argues allows students to access medical interventions without parental consent.
- Health Risks: She specifically pointed to research suggesting that puberty blockers and hormones can lead to decreased bone density and impaired fertility in minors.
Pros and Cons of the Clinic Shutdown
The closure of these clinics has created a sharp divide between medical associations, government officials, and parent advocates.
Arguments for the Shutdown (Pros according to critics)
- Precautionary Principle: Supporters, including the Trump Administration, argue that medical interventions for minors are “irreversible” and “pseudoscientific,” leading to permanent physical changes like infertility and low bone density before a child is mature enough to consent.
- Parental Authority: Proponents of the ban, like Lebsack, believe it stops a “school-to-clinic pipeline” that they claim bypasses parental involvement in a child’s mental and physical health.
- International Precedent: Critics often point to countries like England, Sweden, and Finland, which have recently limited these treatments for minors due to “uncertain evidence” of their long-term benefits.
Arguments Against the Shutdown (Cons according to advocates)
- Mental Health Risks: Major medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Endocrine Society maintain that gender-affirming care is evidence-based and life-saving, noting that it significantly reduces rates of depression and suicide among transgender youth.
- Loss of Specialized Care: Advocacy groups like the Alliance for TransYouth Rights argue that closing these clinics leaves thousands of vulnerable patients without specialized medical guidance, forcing families to “detransition” abruptly or seek care out of state.
- Constitutional Overreach: Opponents of the federal rules argue that using Medicaid funding as a “weapon” to force hospital policy interferes with the private doctor-patient relationship and violates state-level protections for healthcare.