California should let Rady stop starting children on hormones

California should let Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego stop starting children on cross-sex hormones. On Monday, Oct. 19, 2026, Judge Matthew Braner allowed Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego and its sister hospital in Orange County to temporarily limit services for new patients, Voice of San Diego reported.

New patients cannot receive cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers at other stages of puberty, according to Voice of San Diego¹. The exception permits blockers for new patients on the cusp of puberty, KPBS reported². That leaves children exposed to interventions this publication opposes, but stopping new hormone starts is a protection worth defending.

“it is irresponsible to begin new patients on this form of care in light of those circumstances,”

Rady called new starts irresponsible

Rady had sought to stop providing sex-change interventions because it feared losing federal funding, KPBS reported². Its attorney told the court that “it is irresponsible to begin new patients on this form of care in light of those circumstances,” Voice of San Diego reported¹.

Assemblymember Chris Ward and state Sen. Steve Padilla joined legislators urging Braner to reject restrictions, Voice of San Diego reported.

California backed care with {#sec:0 million

Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Rady, arguing that conditions tied to its merger with Children’s Hospital of Orange County require the hospital to continue offering the services, KPBS reported. In February, Braner ordered Rady to continue providing care, except for surgeries, KPBS reported². A merger condition should not become a lever for Sacramento to compel a hospital to keep starting children on hormones when its leaders have concluded that doing so is irresponsible. The state’s lawsuit makes that institutional pressure the issue: whether a hospital can change course, or whether California will use a past agreement and public money to keep the program running.

Existing patients keep their care

The ruling leaves services for existing patients unchanged, Voice of San Diego reported¹. The dispute concerns bringing additional children into treatment.

Kathie Moehlig, executive director of TransFamily Support Services, told KPBS that the next closest option was Los Angeles. She described the burden: “Then our families have to travel, which means parents taking time off work, kids missing school, the cost of travel.”²

Those household costs deserve a direct answer: making interventions easier to obtain does not make starting children on them the right policy. Parents have good reason to resist puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones; California should not organize its courts and spending around expanding access.

California should drop the case by January

Braner’s temporary ruling may remain in place until a Jan. 26, 2027 hearing on California’s lawsuit, Voice of San Diego reported¹. Bonta should end the case before that hearing.

Parents and taxpayers should demand a plain answer: will California let Rady refuse new hormone starts, or keep asking a judge to compel them? State lawmakers should stop financing pediatric sex-change interventions, and Bonta should stop using the merger agreement to keep this program running against the hospital’s judgment.

Sources

1. Judge Says Rady Children’s Can Partially Limit Gender-Transition Care | Voice of San Diego
2. Judge allows Rady Children’s Hospital to limit gender-affirming care to some new patients | KPBS Public Media