Church Against State: How Industry Groups Lead the Religious Liberty Assault on Civil Rights, Healthcare Policy, and the Administrative State.

Industry-funded religious liberty legal groups have sought to undermine healthcare policy and law while simultaneously attacking the rights of sexual and gender minorities. Whereas past scholarship has tracked religiously-affiliated healthcare providers' growing political power and attendant transformations to legal doctrine, our account emphasizes the political donors and visionaries who have leveraged religious providers and the U.S. healthcare system's delegated structure to transform social policy and bureaucratic agencies more generally.

Agents of scientific uncertainty: Conflicts over evidence and expertise in gender-affirming care bans for minors.

Globally, as medical and mental health associations increasingly have expressed support for the gender-affirming care model for trans and gender expansive youth, this model has been paradoxically banned across the United States. Ban proponents have deemed the science behind gender-affirming care to be dangerously uncertain. Examining the first gender-affirming care ban for minors, Arkansas's Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act of 2021, we addressed the following two questions: 1) who are the scientists, clinicians, and political organizations that promote SAFE and similar bans?; and 2) what are the scientific arguments they make to defend SAFE in federal court? First, we developed a typology of the various "agents of scientific uncertainty" behind these bans, drawing on literature from the sociology and history of science and medicine as well as the political economy of scientific doubt. Second, we created and qualitatively analyzed a dataset featuring 375 unique citations referenced throughout federal litigation over SAFE to identify these agents of scientific uncertainty's arguments. We sorted these arguments into eight categories, which reveal how agents distorted scientific evidence and exaggerated real uncertainties and risks in gender-affirming care. This case study establishes a frame for understanding the growing prevalence and legal impact of scientific arguments against gender-affirming care.