American Medical Association tries to save face after publishing prof's article calling for public funding of uterus transplants

The American Medical Association (AMA) has attempted to distance itself from the article, claiming it is not the official view of the entire organization.

The AMA is a major proponent of transgenderism, even publicly condemning 'governmental intrusion into the practice of medicine that is detrimental to the health of transgender and gender-diverse children and adults.'

One of the nation’s leading medical journals appears to be among the latest major institutions to promote gender ideology and transgenderism. 

In June, the American Medical Association’s AMA Journal of Ethics published a peer-reviewed article discussing uterine transplants for men wishing to conceive and analyzes financial support for uterus transplants for men who identify as women (”transgender women”).

The piece is co-authored by Timothy Murphy, a senior associate dean for clinical and translational research at the University at Buffalo, and Kelsey Mumford, a fellow at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and an M.D. candidate at the University of Texas at Austin.

[RELATED: NY state issues ‘gender affirming’ guidelines to schools, warns against ‘denial of access’ to opposite sex locker rooms]

The authors consider the prospects of uterus transplantations (UTx) should there be a demand among men seeking the procedure but who are not capable of possessing a uterus. 

Murphy and Mumford write that those “likely to be interested in UTx are transwomen who want to gestate their own children, transwomen who want uterus transplants to consolidate their identities but not to gestate children, some transmen who want to gestate their own children, and cismen wanting to gestate children of their own.”

Even though there have been no uterus transplants successfully performed for men who identify as women to date, the authors maintain that “some clinicians have maintained that there are no absolute barriers in anatomy, hormones, and obstetric considerations that would rule out the possibility of successful UTx in transwomen.” 

Transwomen lack a trait (the ability to bear children) that may cause them to experience psychological dissonance in a way that undermines their health and well-being,” they write. “It follows that lack of a uterus is an obstacle to full participation in the social goods attached to women’s identity.

Murphy and Mumford ultimately make the case for insurance plans and public funding to cover UTx, arguing on the basis of “[m]orally stronger claims” like “protecting health, comparable coverage for other fertility services, and securing a gender-characteristic capacity as a matter of equity and access.

Following controversy over the article’s release, the AMA publishedpress release addressing the backlash. The group blamed allegedly false reporting by various news outlets, including ”the original inaccurate story published by the Washington Examiner on August 15.”

Campus Reform contacted the AMA following the press release. 

“Many media outlets have falsely ascribed the content of the ethical study to the AMA,” AMA media relations coordinator Robert Mills told Campus Reform.

Mills also suggested that the article’s content is not the official position of the AMA, and that the group does have an official stance on uterine transplants for transgender-identifying individuals. 

[RELATED: College creates dorms for transgender and nonbinary students]

Nonetheless, the AMA is a major proponent of transgenderism, even publicly condemninggovernmental intrusion into the practice of medicine that is detrimental to the health of transgender and gender-diverse children and adults.

The AMA also holds vast widespread influence on college medical education, including its efforts to diversify medical schools in order to “lessen racial and ethnic health inequities.

Campus Reform contacted Murphy and Mumford for comment and will update this article accordingly.

Follow Kaia Lehenbauer on Instagram.