Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) raked a Democrat witness over the coals over citing a medical study that would confirm the benefits of sex change surgery on kids during a congressional hearing. She was unable to do so in another blow to the left’s narrative.
The exchange went down during a House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing where the Texas lawmaker grilled Meredithe McNamara, an assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine on a proposal to withdraw funding from some hospitals that offer genital mutilation surgeries, puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones to minors.
This is a radical new movement that is performing permanent physiological changes to children with no evidence of any benefits. pic.twitter.com/BV9at1G7At
— Rep. Dan Crenshaw (@RepDanCrenshaw) June 14, 2023
“You’ve said that we cherry-picked data. How do you mean that?” Crenshaw asked the congressional guest.
“So, it is very unscientific and flawed to pick a single study or a single statistic and discuss it in isolation,” McNamara responded. “Medical experts are able to talk about all of the evidence as a whole.”
“Totally agree,” Crenshaw responded. “It’s good to look at systematic reviews, right? That’s the gold standard of evidence when you’re trying to understand whether something works or it doesn’t.”
“The British Journal of Medicine looked at 61 systematic reviews with the conclusion that, quote, ‘There is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries in young people.’ The Journal of the Endocrine Society came up with the same conclusion, even the American Academy of Pediatrics. They all cite the lack of evidence,” he said.
“If you’re doing a therapy, and it’s, you know, temporary, fine, whatever, maybe let’s try it and see if it works,” Crenshaw continued. “But when you’re talking about permanent physiological changes, do you not agree, just from an ethical standpoint, that you might want extremely strong evidence of the benefits? There’s no systematic review that states that there’s strong evidence of benefits.”
“Sir, are you aware of how the quality evidence grading system works and how it’s applied?” McNamara asked.
The congressman continued with his schooling of the Ivy League professor, saying that he and his staff had “read through it,” while letting her know that was his reason for “citing these journals.”
“Which journal says something different?” Crenshaw asked. “We should have that debate. Tell me a journal that has done systematic reviews that cites different evidence, that cites strong evidence of benefits for these therapies.”
McNamara answered, “The standards of care were developed based on extensive…”
“You’re not telling me any study, don’t say ‘standards of care,'” Crenshaw asked. “Tell me one.”
“So, um, the standards of care…” stammered McNamara.
“The standards of care,” Crenshaw countered as he zeroed in on the witness. “That’s not a journal, that’s not a study. That’s not an organization. That’s not an institution. You’re just saying words. Name one study.”
McNamara was unable to provide the Lone Star State lawmaker with the name of a single specific study before his time expired.
Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE
- Swalwell plays victim as he’s pounded over Kash Patel’s possible release of files on him and ‘Fang Fang’ - March 30, 2026
- Karoline Leavitt responds to NYT hit piece trashing Trump’s new WH ballroom - March 30, 2026
- Carville sticking with WILD prediction that Trump will resign after midterms - March 28, 2026
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.