hormone therapy

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to let it deny hormone therapy to transgender inmates, in a move reported by the New York Times. The filing asks the justices to intervene in litigation over prison healthcare for transgender people. The request is drawing attention from civil rights advocates and reigniting debate over transgender rights and the treatment of incarcerated people under the administration.

The Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court to let it deny hormone therapy to transgender inmates in federal custody. The request escalates a legal fight over medical care for transgender prisoners, pitting claims of institutional discretion and public cost against court rulings that withholding such treatment violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The justices' response will shape how far correctional authorities must go in providing gender-affirming care behind bars.

New research suggests that analysing the biology of prostate cancer tumours can help doctors identify which patients are most likely to benefit from hormone therapy. The findings could support more personalised treatment decisions, allowing clinicians to target therapy at those most likely to respond rather than applying it universally. The report has drawn attention in medical news coverage.

Members of the US House Democratic Women's Caucus are pressing the health secretary over shortages of estrogen patches, a hormone replacement therapy product many women rely on. The caucus is demanding answers on supply problems and what the administration is doing to restore availability, keeping drug shortages and women's health access in the political spotlight.

The Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court to block gender-affirming care for transgender prisoners, escalating its legal campaign against such treatment. The request goes directly to the nation's highest court and concerns inmates' access to hormone therapy and related medical care while incarcerated. Civil rights groups are expected to oppose the move, arguing it violates constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment.