1. United States
2. Utah
3. Letter

Utah taxpayers spent over $100,000 on a comprehensive medical evidence review as part of SB16, and lawmakers owe us a public discussion of what that money revealed. The University of Utah's Drug Regimen Review Center analyzed 277 studies involving more than 28,000 pediatric patients worldwide and delivered clear findings in May 2024. Yet the Health and Human Services Interim Committee never scheduled a presentation or discussion in any of its six public hearings. The reports were simply posted online without acknowledgment. This silence is particularly troubling given what the review concluded. The pharmacists found that gender-affirming care for minors with gender dysphoria largely results in positive outcomes and reduces suicide risk. They stated that the consensus of evidence supports that treatments are effective for mental health and psychosocial outcomes, and safe in terms of bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic changes, and cancer. The reviewers explicitly stated there is no evidence to justify policies preventing access to this care. These findings matter because real Utah families are suffering under current restrictions. Clinical child and adolescent psychologist Collin Kuhn, who specializes in transgender youth care, describes the difference between receiving and not receiving care as night and day. Approximately half of his five dozen clients are affected by SB16's restrictions. Some families have moved out of state, while others make regular trips across state lines for treatment, causing parents to miss work and children to miss school. The 2023 Student Health and Risk Prevention survey found that 25% of transgender students in Utah reported attempting suicide in the previous year, with 61% seriously considering it. These are our children. I urge you to demand a public hearing on the Drug Regimen Review Center's findings before any vote on HB174 or HB193. Taxpayers funded this research. We deserve transparency about why its conclusions are being ignored in favor of assessments from groups like Do No Harm, which receives funding from The Heritage Foundation and does not disclose most of its donors.