News & Commentary written by Dr. Michele Hutchison

Back to News & Commentary

Dr. Michele Hutchison

Pediatric Endocrinologist


“As a doctor, I am duty-bound to care for my patients, but this law would prohibit me from providing the proven, evidence-based care they need. I know first-hand that gender-affirming care is life-saving care. Since this law passed we’ve been inundated with calls from panic-stricken parents who are terrified about what it will mean for their children. That’s why I’m fighting back.” – Dr. Michele Hutchison

Dr. Michele Hutchison is a pediatric endocrinologist at Arkansas Children’s Hospital. She has been treating transgender youth at the Gender Spectrum Clinic at Arkansas Children’s Hospital since its inception in 2018. Dr. Hutchison has treated about 200 children and adolescents at the Clinic since its opening. There are around 160 patients currently under the Clinic’s care. Neither UAMS nor ACH are plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and Dr. Hutchison is pursuing claims in this action solely in her individual capacity.

Should the healthcare ban go into effect, Dr. Hutchison will not be able to treat her patients with gender dysphoria in accordance with the accepted standards of care.

Dr. Hutchison knows from personal experience treating hundreds of transgender youth that the ban on gender-affirming care will significantly and severely compromise the health of her patients. As she testified before the Senate Public Health and Labor Committee on March 22, 2021, she “had multiple kids in [the] emergency room because of an attempted suicide” after the Health Care Ban passed out of the House. After the law was passed, her office received calls from numerous patients expressing suicidal thoughts related to the prospect of losing the health care they rely on for their well-being.

Being forced to deny her patients medically necessary care that can be life-saving for some patients, violates the tenets of Dr. Hutchison’s profession by leaving them to suffer needless pain.

Learn more about Brandt et al v Rutledge et al