California’s recently introduced Assembly Bill 260 is proposing expanding access to abortion and gender-affirming care through asynchronous telehealth methods, allowing patients—including minors—to receive such services without in-person consultations.
While proponents argue that this measure increases accessibility, particularly for those in rural areas, opponents say it raises significant concerns regarding medical safety, ethical implications, and its direct impact on minors.
In a recent press conference, Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry stated, “We will not stop until a woman’s reproductive health and abortion rights stop being attacked by our country.”
However, the most controversial aspect of this bill is that it does not explicitly restrict these services to adults, meaning if this bill passed, minors could potentially access life-altering medical procedures without in-person medical evaluations or parental consent.
The Inclusion of Minors in AB 260: A Major Concern
While the bill does not explicitly limit services to adults, its broad language suggests that minors could access abortion and gender-affirming treatments without parental involvement. This would allow children to make life-altering medical decisions, such as changing their gender and getting an abortion, without the guidance of their parents or guardians.
A January 2025 New York Times poll found that 71% of Americans believe minors should not have access to gender-affirming care.
Similarly, a 2023 poll by The Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation found that 68% of adults oppose access to puberty-blocking medication for transgender children ages 10 to 14.
These statistics reflect widespread public concern over allowing minors to undergo irreversible medical procedures without proper medical and parental oversight.
Ethical and Psychological Ramifications for Minors
Some argue that minors do not possess the same decision-making capabilities as adults and that with this line of logic, the bill would allow them to access powerful medications and procedures with potentially lifelong consequences.
Research shows that adolescents’ brains are still developing, making them more prone to impulsive decision-making (National Institute of Mental Health, 2023).
An argument that is often made by those in support of gender affirming care is that hormones are completely reversible, making them a safe option to start with.
However, those opposed have presented research showing that gender-affirming treatments such as hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and puberty blockers can cause irreversible changes, including infertility and bone density loss (Mayo Clinic, 2023).
One young woman, Chloe Cole, has taken center stage among the stories of detransitioners (transgender individuals who have gone back to their biologically assigned sex). Chloe Cole was permitted to take hormones and get top surgery starting at the age of 12, only to realize at the age of 17 she regretted it. She argued in a recent Fox News article that gender surgery “is a physical treatment for problems that are psychological in nature.”
However, while much of the noise around AB-260 lies in the controversy around gender transition for minors, this bill also raises questions around its proposed policies on abortion care as well.
One of the most prominent pro-life activists, Lila Rose of Live Action, argues that abortion has been linked to increased risks of depression and anxiety (Live Action, 2020). If minors can access abortion pills without medical consultation or psychological screening, Lila argues they may face unforeseen emotional and physical consequences without adequate support.
The Concerns around Asynchronous Abortion Care
Medication abortion involves drugs like Mifepristone and Misoprostol, which, with the instruction of medical professionals, must be taken according to strict guidelines to avoid complications such as excessive bleeding, incomplete abortions, or infections.
Those who are against this bill argue that without in-person medical supervision, patients—including minors—could take these medications without proper assessments for potential health risks, citing that studies have shown that self-managed abortions without clinical oversight can increase emergency room visits and adverse medical outcomes (Charlotte Lozier Institute, 2023).
Furthermore, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), mifepristone has resulted in serious adverse events, including hemorrhaging, infections, and even death, and these risks significantly increased when used without in-person evaluation and medical oversight.
Pro-life activists express concern that without any real-time doctor interaction, women, and potentially minors, can access this medication and face life-threatening consequences.
Lack of Comprehensive Evaluations
The one thing both sides tend to agree on is that gender-affirming care, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and puberty blockers, has life-altering effects, and those who choose to follow through will never live a truly normal life due to potential harassment and the opinions of others on what rights they should be allowed.
Those opposed to this bill believe these treatments require thorough psychological and medical assessments, something they feel is impossible through an asynchronous telehealth model.
With the Endocrine Society stating that gender-affirming treatment requires careful evaluation to ensure patients fully understand the long-term implications of medical transition, many Americans wonder whether telehealth services fail to provide adequate care.
Concerns from the Medical Community
Healthcare professionals have reservations about the safety and efficacy of such sensitive medical services without in-person consultations. The American College of Pediatricians opposes gender-affirming treatments for minors due to the irreversible effects and potential psychological harm (ACP, 2024). Similarly, OB-GYNs have warned that mail-order abortion pills could lead to an increase in complications, including incomplete abortions and emergency hospitalizations.
AB 260 raises serious questions about expanding access to abortion and gender-affirming care for minors without in-person medical evaluations or parental involvement.
While supporters argue this increases accessibility, critics warn that allowing minors to make life-altering medical decisions without proper oversight could lead to serious health risks and ethical concerns. As lawmakers consider this bill, the debate will center on whether accessibility should precede medical safety, parental rights, and long-term consequences for young patients.
