Connect with us

Substacks

How Did Planned Parenthood Become One of the Country’s Largest Suppliers of Testosterone? Jennifer Block

Published

on

When she was 18, Cristina Hineman, now 20, obtained a prescription for testosterone gel from Planned Parenthood. Now, she’s suing the organization for medical malpractice. (Cindy Schultz for The Free Press)

For Cristina Hineman, the situation felt urgent: the 17-year-old needed treatment at Planned Parenthood, where she knew she wouldn’t be subjected to humiliating questions, or an unnecessary waiting period, or lectures, or prying about her certainty. But it wasn’t an abortion she sought. It was testosterone.

Planned Parenthood was founded a century ago to promote birth control. Today, its nearly 600 clinics nationwide make it the largest single provider of abortion, contraception, reproductive care, and sex education in the U.S. 

It has also, in less than a decade, become the country’s leading provider of gender transition hormones for young adults, according to insurance claim data. In 2015, around two dozen of their clinics began offering this service. Now it’s available at nearly 450 locations. Insurance claim information provided to The Free Press by the Manhattan Institute shows that at least 40,000 patients went to Planned Parenthood for this purpose last year alone, a number that has risen tenfold since 2017. The largest proportion, about 40 percent, were 18- to 22-year-olds.

Faced with her parents’ skepticism, Hineman waited to make an appointment for just after her 18th birthday in November 2021 at the Planned Parenthood in Hudson, NY. Some clinics offer hormones starting at age 16 with parental approval, but as a legal adult Hineman wouldn’t need their consent.

After she filled out forms in the Planned Parenthood waiting room, a nurse led her to an exam room and handed her a consent form for “masculinizing hormone therapy.” 

Records show that a nurse practitioner asked about Hineman’s identity and desires; she noted that “patient has consulted with a mental health provider”—meaning Hineman had previously talked to therapists. The two discussed the “expected changes” related to testosterone—growing a beard and body hair, deepening voice, and that “changes to fertility may be permanent or reversible.” 

Then the first nurse took Hineman’s blood, and she was given a prescription for testosterone gel. She remembers all this taking under 30 minutes. 

Like many others in the rising wave of female teens seeking to masculinize, she had been battling a cluster of mental health problems: self-harm, depression, and anxiety. Also like many of these teens, Hineman has autism. The Covid lockdown exacerbated her troubles. She told me, “I couldn’t see my friends, I couldn’t see my girlfriend. I was depressed and scared, in my room ruminating all the time.” 

The viral YouTubers she was watching convinced her that gender was the problem. “I was like, oh my god, trans includes all the things I’ve been feeling—my discomfort with my chest, my discomfort with being called ‘young woman,’ not being sure of who I was or what I wanted to be,” she said. 

Just over a year into treatment, Hineman realized she had made a terrible mistake, and that gender was not the source of her problems. “I was brainwashed,” she says now. “A lot of people say that adults should be able to do whatever they want. But if you have mental illness that’s clouding your view, or you’re so misinformed about what gender dysphoria even means, then you cannot consent to such invasive treatments.”

Hineman, who went from identifying as “nonbinary” to “agender” to “trans” over the course of a year, now considers herself a “detransitioner”—someone who, if possible, has returned to living as their birth sex, often with medical side effects. 

Today, reported exclusively in The Free Press, she is a plaintiff in the first detransitioner lawsuit against Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In the medical malpractice suit, filed in April, she’s seeking unspecified damages for negligence and failure to obtain informed consent from all the health providers—including those at Planned Parenthood—who facilitated her medical transition: from therapists who “encouraged” her desire to change genders, to the plastic surgeon who removed her breasts after a superficial consult when she turned 19, to the nurse practitioner at Planned Parenthood who wrote Hineman the prescription for testosterone. (In June, Planned Parenthood filed its answer to the complaint, disputing Hineman’s claims.)

Hineman, who went from “nonbinary” to “agender” to “trans” over the course of a year, now considers herself a “detransitioner”—someone has returned to living as their birth sex, often with medical side effects. Above, Hineman walks with her mother, Nadine, at Poets’ Walk Park in Red Hook, NY. (Cindy Schultz for The Free Press)

She joins more than a dozen young people who, in separate lawsuits across the country, are alleging medical malpractice by institutions such as Kaiser Permanente as well as individual practitioners, and are seeking compensation for the harm they claim has been done to them. 

Her suit comes as the U.S. is increasingly alone in championing hormonal and surgical interventions to swiftly transition gender-distressed young people. A growing list of European countries, including Sweden, Finland, and the UK, are restricting these sometimes irreversible treatments for young people and favoring an approach that encourages therapy to address all the causes of a patient’s distress. 

In 2020 a young British detransitioner, Keira Bell, was a claimant in a case against the government clinic that supervised her transition. Like Hineman, Bell asserted she was a troubled young person who needed psychological counseling, not medical transition. Her case caused a firestorm that helped lead to the comprehensive Cass Review, released in April, which delivered a scathing indictment of the “gender-affirming” model. 

The distinguished English pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, who led the review, has said, “I can’t think of another area of pediatric care where we give young people a potentially irreversible treatment and have no idea what happens to them in adulthood.” Meanwhile, new revelations show that the purported evidence of the benefits of medical transition cited by advocates has been manipulated for political purposes. 

But in the U.S., major medical associations from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the Endocrine Society continue to back gender-affirming care. In response, about two dozen Republican-led states have passed laws restricting this treatment for minors. 

If malpractice lawsuits like Hineman’s are successful, they have the potential to reshape the currently accepted medical standard of gender care. This can be summarized as setting children on a path to medical transition, and treatment on demand for adults. This applies even when these adults are still teenagers and legally restricted from activities such as buying alcohol or renting a car. 

“Treatment without a competent evaluation shouldn’t be foisted on you whether you’re 15 or 30,” says Kevin Keller, an attorney who is consulting pro bono on several detransitioner cases brought by firms across the country. “Vulnerability is the issue. If there’s no comprehensive screening in place before a medical intervention that’s going to have permanent effects,” that’s a breach of duty, he argues.

Hineman describes herself as politically to the left. She supports the right to abortion and does not want to hamper women’s access to that at Planned Parenthood. 

Her attorneys may have different political leanings, but Jordan Campbell, who left commercial litigation two years ago to exclusively represent detransitioners, tells me the firm is apolitical. He was motivated to “do something” after hearing a detransitioner’s harrowing experience on a podcast, and law school friends joined the cause. (In 2022, the conservative Independent Women’s Forum launched a series of documentaries about gender medicine, focusing on detransitioners. Four of the dozen people profiled so far are Campbell’s clients, including Hineman. The documentary on her is debuting with this article.) 

Keller told me, “There’s a real belief among these plaintiffs and lawyers that this is the great medical scandal of our times.” 

Watch the documentary from the IWF about Hineman and her suit against Planned Parenthood here:  

There is another civil suit against a Planned Parenthood affiliate, filed in February by a different law firm, representing a detransitioner in the Midwest. She spoke to me on condition that she not be identified by name in this story. I’ll call her Anna. 

Two years ago, Anna made an appointment for her 19th birthday at a Planned Parenthood clinic a thousand miles away from Hineman’s. Yet her experience unfolded so identically it’s as if the Planned Parenthood clinician was following a script. And essentially, she was. Planned Parenthood medical guidelines are made by the national headquarters. “Like any franchise, you know what to expect in whatever affiliate you go to because they’re all practicing by the same standards and guidelines,” Dr. Paul Blumenthal, an emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford and former chair of Planned Parenthood’s National Medical Committee, told me.

These guidelines allow for speedy access to life-altering hormones. As evident in one affiliate’s Gender Affirming Hormone Therapy Patient Handbook: “Most of our patients can get a hormone prescription at the end of their first visit with us.”

Anna, who is now 22 years old, tells me she was a tomboy as a kid, which led to a lonely adolescence in which she struggled with depression, anxiety, ADHD, and was “hating puberty because I’m getting these huge boobs and period that’s horribly uncomfortable.” She was also discovering that she was attracted to girls. When she started dating, many of the females she was interested in had started to identify as male, and Anna describes herself as having been “young and impressionable.”

Anna took testosterone for seven months, which was enough to drop her voice and thicken her body hair. Now, she says she experiences constant vocal pain, joint pain, and frustrating and sometimes painful sexual dysfunction. She says that none of these distressing side effects were discussed at that first Planned Parenthood appointment, one that resulted in a prescription for testosterone. 

In her suit, Anna is asking for a minimum of $50,000 in damages and coverage of her legal costs. The suit alleges that Planned Parenthood’s care was so negligent that Anna “has suffered great pain and anguish” and “has experienced a substantial loss of her normal life.”

She’s grateful for a lab mix-up that stopped her refills and led her to abandon transition before she started to look more masculine. She tells me she occasionally gets “sir’d” now, mostly on the phone, or maybe because she “presents a bit dykeish.”

She’s doing her best to move on, and has a satisfying part-time job and her own apartment, though she tells me every day is still a struggle. “I just have a lot of regret.” She’s suing because “I don’t want people to get hurt like I did,” she tells me, and she wants Planned Parenthood to stop treating patients “like they’re on a conveyor belt.” Many of her friends are trans—she’s not trying to take away their care. “I want them to be healthy and fully informed.”

Hineman, who is now 20 years old, has permanent effects from testosterone, like hair on the backs of her hands and side of her face. Her clitoris, which she had once hoped would come to resemble “a small penis” under the effects of testosterone, is now permanently enlarged and so uncomfortable that it’s difficult to wear fitted pants or jeans. Her sexual response has been dulled. “I was very sensitive down there before. Now it’s harder to have a satisfying experience,” she tells me with embarrassment. 

Talking about the double mastectomy is even more difficult: her chest is concave, scarred, and alternately numb and raw. She didn’t think about breastfeeding when she was seeking to transition, but now is haunted by the fact she’ll never be able to. 

For Hineman, the whole project of gender identity was “kind of like a punk thing,” she says. But rather than sex, drugs, and rock and roll, it was just drugs. And surgery. “It’s a medicalized version of normal teen rebellion. And I got completely sucked into that.”

Hineman tells me all this from her parents’ home in the Hudson Valley—she’s living there saving money while she works at a convenience store selling cigarettes she’s still not legally old enough to buy until she turns 21 in October. She’s articulate and shy, with braces that make her seem younger than she is. The testosterone somewhat lowered her voice, but her hair and overall style helps her present as female. Occasionally people assume she’s male, but she’s made a conscious decision to shrug it off because getting “emotionally bogged down about being misgendered” is what led to transition in the first place, she tells me. “I had the realization that I can’t continue to let this bother me in any direction.”

“I was brainwashed,” says Cristina Hineman. “A lot of people say that adults should be able to do whatever they want. But if you have mental illness that’s clouding your view, or you’re so misinformed about what gender dysphoria even means, then you cannot consent to such invasive treatments.” (Cindy Schultz for The Free Press)

How did Planned Parenthood transform itself from an organization devoted to women’s health into one of the country’s largest suppliers of testosterone?

Planned Parenthood traces its origins to the opening of a birth control clinic in New York in 1916 by a nurse named Margaret Sanger. It was swiftly shut down and Sanger was arrested because, at the time, distributing birth control—even distributing information on birth control—was illegal. Sanger persevered in her mission of bringing contraception to the masses, infamously making an alliance with the eugenics movement. 

Today, the organization serves more than two million patients a year, and has for decades provided affordable gynecological care for women who can’t find it elsewhere. It has revenues of around $2 billion, of which nearly $700 million comes from publicly funded programs such as Medicaid. Its motto is “Care, no matter what.” 

In 2005, a northern California affiliate expanded that care to a pilot program in Santa Cruz intended mainly for male-to-female transsexuals, as they were then commonly called. This was long before de rigueur pronouns, before puberty blockers were a culture war weapon, and a full decade before the still-unexplained spike in female teens across the Western world identifying as trans.

Dr. Jen Hastings, a Santa Cruz family physician working at Planned Parenthood, spearheaded the program. There she saw how estrogen—a hormone her clinic prescribed for menopausal women—could help an underserved, marginalized population of trans-identified adults who were born male.

Hastings then focused her career on expanding transgender services throughout Planned Parenthood. At a 2015 conference of reproductive health clinicians, Hastings led a session titled “Transgender health care in your affiliate: You can do it!” (Hastings did not respond to requests for an interview.)

It was around that time that two physicians active in expanding access to hormonal treatments started advising Planned Parenthood. Both have advocated against what’s derisively known as “gatekeeping”—that is, requiring a mental health evaluation, or a certain number of therapy sessions, or a referral letter to initiate treatment. They supported early intervention, at the cusp of puberty, based on the argument that doing so spared gender dysphoric young people the trauma of a “wrong” puberty. 

These physicians are Dr. Madeline Deutsch, director of the Gender Affirming Health Program at the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, the medical director of The Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. Both were subject matter experts on transgender care for Planned Parenthood; Olson-Kennedy joined the national medical committee in 2017. The guidelines increasingly reflected a “patient-led” approach, with protocols added for minors. (Some clinics limit gender treatment to 18-plus, others 16-plus.) An internal slide presentation shows that Planned Parenthood gender services more than quadrupled between 2016 and 2021. 

The organization would not give specific numbers, or respond to multiple requests for comment, but the insurance claim data (estimates that do not include patients who pay out of pocket) suggest that 1 in 6 U.S. teens and young adults who sought gender hormones last year were seen at Planned Parenthood. Between 2017 and 2023, affiliated clinics filed gender-related insurance claims for 12,000 youths aged 12–17.

There were plans to bring in even younger patients. In 2022, the Planned Parenthood in Santa Cruz launched another pilot, this time offering puberty blockers and hormones for teens aged 15 and under. The goal was to expand the program, but only “a small handful” of families came, an affiliate spokesperson told me, and it was shuttered. Meanwhile, the St. Louis affiliate is under investigation by the state attorney general for allegedly eliding parental consent when providing gender-transition care to minors.

Dr. Nicole Chaisson, associate medical director of Planned Parenthood North Central States, told me easy access to appointments and treatment for young people seeking transition is precisely the point. Chaisson defends a quick consult that allows a teenager to “leave the clinic with their prescription.” She told me that “otherwise healthy patients” who have been living as trans for some time tend to have already given sufficient thought to making irreversible changes. 

Chiasson says the gender treatments come under an “informed consent” model. “Gatekeeping is not necessary. People are the experts of their own body and of their own journey, and as long as they can make decisions, they should be the agent of their own healthcare.”

A Planned Parenthood video shared on social media tells teens: “Your gender identity is real. You should be the one to decide what changes you want to make to your body.” Olson-Kennedy told colleagues in 2018 that teens can consent to what she called “chest surgery” or breast removal. She added, “If you want breasts at a later point in your life, you can go and get them.” She did not respond to requests for comment.

Dr. Vanessa Cullins was Planned Parenthood’s VP of Medical Affairs when it wrote transgender services into the national guidelines, allowing the program to expand nationally. Originally, the impetus was facilitating bodily autonomy in a small population of mostly male adults seeking to transition. 

I reached Cullins in Florida, where she’s resided since retiring from her position and medicine generally in 2016. She told me she was “proud” to have started the transgender services program. But when I shared the updated guidelines with her and told her about what Hineman and Anna have gone through, she expressed concern. “We have to be vigilant when we’re giving powerful medications to young people, and these are powerful medications,” Cullins told me, which must necessarily involve side effects. If someone is not fully informed and prepared, “it could be a nightmare.” 

During her tenure, gender treatment was for adults only and based on a “team model” of care, Cullins explained, in which clinic staff coordinated with outside mental health and primary care. She added of the typical visit under today’s guidelines, “I would suggest that 30 minutes is not enough.” 

Cristina Hineman tells The Free Press that the last time she went to Planned Parenthood in March 2023, she held back tears as she told the nurse practitioner she realized that it all had been a mistake. (Cindy Schultz for The Free Press)

Trading one biological sex hormone for the other has a multitude of profound impacts: on metabolism, on risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke, on bone health, on mood stability, on cognition, and on sexual function and fertility. Female sex organs thrive on estrogen, which the ovaries cease to produce under the sway of testosterone. After a few years, atrophy may affect the entire reproductive tract. 

Planned Parenthood’s materials for clinicians state atrophy can begin within just 3–6 months of exposure. But on the brief patient consent form—it’s about three pages long—that both Hineman and Anna signed, this was referred to only as “genital dryness.” 

I spoke with a former Planned Parenthood clinic employee who, trans-identified himself, has been taking testosterone for nearly a decade and knows its effects intimately. He became concerned that the information wasn’t being shared with new patients, and asked the chief medical officer why. He was told that protocols were set by the national office, and in any case, informing patients of lesser-known side effects “would scare them.” He has since obtained legal whistleblower protection.

Hineman says of her experience, “There was no conversation about the actual process of what the hormones are going to do in your body; it’s just you take the shot and start becoming more male,” she says. Both she and Anna are alleging that clinicians did not explain the treatment sufficiently to meet the legal standard of informed consent. This requires that a patient must fully understand the risks and benefits of the treatment or medication they are considering as well as being presented with the alternatives.

Dr. Nicole Chaisson said that side effects are part of the conversation, but acknowledged that some may go unmentioned, saying it would be wrong to point patients to things that might happen 10 or 20 years down the road when “they’re having lifesaving care right now.”

Chaisson is referring to a claim often repeated by gender practitioners: that without access to “affirming” treatments, young people will commit suicide. This is a threat that’s been commonly held over parents reluctant to approve transition for their child. 

Fortunately, there is now good evidence to refute this dire claim. Researchers in Finland recently published the largest study to date looking at suicide in gender-distressed patients and found that suicide is rare, and the greatest predictor of it is previously diagnosed psychiatric conditions. Lead author Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala has called it “dishonest and extremely unethical” for clinicians to exaggerate risk. Dr. Hilary Cass was also clear in her review: “the evidence does not adequately support the claim that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk.”

After the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump—and the promised threat to abortion rights that came to pass—record donations funded many new hires at Planned Parenthood’s national office. I spoke to several physicians who served in high-level positions within the organization who expressed frustration with the national office for pouring more resources into advocacy than medical services. 

“Planned Parenthood became the place to work if you wanted to be on the front lines of the anti-Trump resistance,” a former high-level executive who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity told me. 

Many of the new staffers in the national office “believed in every so-called progressive issue, and at that time the forefront was gender-affirming care. That one issue became everything.”

And this required new language. “There was this huge push to cancel the word woman,” the former executive told me. “Women’s health or female were edited out constantly to reflect gender-neutral language.” For example, people with uteruses began appearing. Chestfeeding became a synonym for breastfeeding. And front hole as a word for vagina was added to the glossary.

The last time she went to Planned Parenthood in March of 2023, Hineman, then 19, held back tears as she told the nurse practitioner she had come to realize, with horror that still grips her, that it all had been a mistake. The consent form Hineman had signed stated, “You can choose to stop taking testosterone at any time. If you decide to do that, talk to your doctor or nurse.” But Hineman discovered there was no protocol for stopping, no handout. Her clinician had no advice except to contact a gender therapist. Hineman left a voicemail but said she never got a return call. 

The week before, she’d had her final post-op appointment with the surgeon who removed her breasts. When the bandages came off, she hated what she saw. She had sought surgery believing this was “the only way” to make the “crippling feeling” of suicidal depression go away. It’s what she’d been told “over and over and over again” on the internet, by medical professionals and YouTubers alike.

But the next night she had “the biggest anxiety attack of my entire life.” She called for her mother to comfort her, and cried so hard she threw up. “I regretted everything,” she tells me. She was overwhelmed with the thought that “I’m never going to look like a woman again, I’m never going to have feeling back in my chest.” 

The next day was a scheduled testosterone “injection day,” but instead of plunging a needle in her belly, she shaved her legs and put on a red dress with long sleeves that hid her biceps. She announced the change in an Instagram post that said, “I’m going by she/her pronouns again.” 

Anna also looks back with bafflement that her depression and other medical factors didn’t give providers pause. “I was lost. I was hurting. I was a fucked-up teen who needed help,” she told me. 

Hineman now regrets that she put off college to transition, and spent her life savings, about $9,000, on a mastectomy. She has gone public because she wants young people like herself, their parents, and the providers who are pushing ideology over good care to know that there are safe and humane ways to address the kind of distress she suffered. “The answers are not just transition or suicide. There are ways to work through these feelings without altering your body,” she says.

As for Planned Parenthood, she says, “Honestly, I want them to focus on women’s health. That’s what they exist for.”

Jennifer Block is a journalist and author, often writing about contested areas of medicine. She got her start contributing to outlets including The Village Voice, The Nation, and Ms. magazine. She was most recently an investigations reporter at The BMJ. Follow her on X @writingblock.

Investigations like this one require time and resources. To support more of our independent journalism, become a Free Press subscriber today:

Subscribe now

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Substacks

Are U.S. Airlines ‘Playing Into Iran’s Game’? Jay Solomon

Published

on

By

For most of the past year, none of the three major U.S. carriers—United Airlines, American Airlines, or Delta—have flown to Israel. (Photo by Jack Guez via AFP)

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, defines his campaign against Israel as being won as much through economics and psychological coercion as through victories on the battlefield. And nearly a year into the Jewish state’s war with Hamas, Iran’s military proxy in the Gaza Strip, Khamenei’s strategy appears to be advancing—with an assist from the U.S. airline industry.

For most of the past year, none of the three major American carriers—United Airlines, American Airlines, or Delta—have flown to Israel, citing the Gaza war and the security threats posed by Tehran and its military allies. And none of these airlines have offered definitive time frames for when their flights might resume. This has left Israel’s national carrier, El Al, as the only direct connection between the country and its closest ally and economic partner on the other side of the world, and has sent airfares between the U.S. and Israel skyrocketing.

In recent days, the cost of a round trip economy flight to Tel Aviv from New York on El Al is around $2,500, according to Israeli travel agencies, up from around $899 before October 7, 2023. United, American, and Delta previously all had at least one daily flight to Israel from New York or Newark, and together served Israel three times a week from Boston, Dallas, Miami, Chicago, and Washington D.C.

The suspension of the American flights is feeding into the economic and diplomatic isolation that Iran’s leaders are seeking, according to Israeli political and business leaders. “The American carriers are playing into Iran’s game,” said Eyal Hulata, who served as national security adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, from 2001–2003. 

Jerusalem’s allies in Washington are urgently seeking to establish clearer U.S. government guidelines for when U.S. airlines should halt traffic to Israel, and when it can resume. If not, they warn, American carriers risk bolstering, even unwittingly, the economic coercion that Iran and Israel’s critics in the West are pursuing, often under the banner of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, or BDS.

“In my view, unless there’s an objective process put in place to prevent the politicization of air travel, I predict that in the future the BDS movement will try to weaponize air travel as a new means of boycotting Israel,” U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-New York) told The Free Press. “And a travel ban has the potential to be the most potent weapon in BDS’s war against the Jewish state.”

Torres wrote the presidents of American, Delta, and United in August asking them to map out the guidelines they followed in deciding to suspend their routes to Israel. None of the three airlines issued an official response to Torres’ letter, and his staff says they have communicated with the U.S. carriers’ government affairs teams, but didn’t disclose the result of these discussions.

Current and former Israeli officials told The Free Press they’re particularly confused by the U.S. airlines’ decisions as a number of Middle Eastern, African, and European carriers are currently flying to Tel Aviv despite these security threats. That includes three airlines from the United Arab Emirates—Etihad Airways, FlyDubai, and Wizz Air Abu Dhabi—whose government only normalized diplomatic relations with Israel in 2020 as part of the Trump administration’s Abraham Accords. These pacts seek to integrate Israel economically and diplomatically into the wider Arab world. 

“They should fly to Israel exactly like the Gulf countries and others do,” said Hulata, the former national security adviser. “And if they don’t do this because they are scared of rockets, then there’s something fundamentally wrong in their decision making.”

Hulata, who now serves as a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, added: “There hasn’t been a rocket anywhere close to the airport for months.”

Passengers scan the departures board at Ben Gurion Airport on September 2, 2024. (Photo by Ameer Abed Rabbo/Anadolu via Getty Images)

The three major U.S. carriers initially halted air travel to Israel last October 7 after Hamas militants crossed the country’s southern border and slaughtered 1,200 people, mostly civilians. The airlines’ decisions weren’t ordered, however, by the U.S.’s airline regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA only cautioned American carriers against flying to Israel at the time. 

The FAA’s position was actually much more restrained than in the summer of 2014. Then, Hamas rocket strikes close to Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport—the primary international hub near Tel Aviv—caused the airline authority to briefly suspend all outbound U.S. flights. Israeli officials were incensed, arguing the ban amounted to an assault on the country’s economy. American supporters of Israel, including former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, flew to Tel Aviv on El Al flights to show solidarity.

The three U.S. airlines have said in public statements that their decisions on Israel are tied solely to the security threats posed to their crews and passengers. United and Delta briefly resumed flights to Tel Aviv in June, but then suspended them in August in the wake of the assassination of Hamas’s political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, in Iran—an attack Tehran blamed on Israel and vowed to avenge. 

The Iranian military and its proxies launched a barrage of missiles and drones at Israel in April in response to an Israeli strike on an Iranian compound in Syria. But they were almost all intercepted by Israel, U.S., European, and Arab air defenses. The Israel Defense Forces and Pentagon remain on high alert for another Iranian reprisal. 

At present, Delta says its flights remain canceled through October 31; American Airlines cites March 2025 as a potential resumption date; and United Airlines says its services to Israel remain on hold indefinitely. “Our flights to Tel Aviv remain suspended—we look forward to resuming flights as soon as it’s safe for our customers and crew,” a United spokesperson told The Free Press.

American declined to comment and Delta said it is “continuously monitoring the evolving security environment and assessing our operations based on security guidance and intelligence reports and will communicate any updates as needed.”

This travel ban has forced Americans needing to go to Israel to either pay higher El Al fares or find more time-consuming routes through Europe. One U.S. defense expert who needed to meet Israeli security officials in Jerusalem this month to discuss the Iranian threat told The Free Press it took weeks to arrange a flight. No seats on El Al flights were available, and he eventually went via Paris on Air France. “It’s stunning how hard it was to get there,” he said. 

Still, the outspokenness of a number of U.S. airline unions against travel to Israel has raised concerns among members of Congress and the Israeli government that politics may also be factoring into the flight ban. 

A day after the October 7 attack, the president of the Allied Pilots Association, Captain Ed Sicher, ordered the union’s 16,000 members to refuse any requests from American Airlines to fly to the Jewish state. “As noted in APA’s initial update yesterday regarding the safe evacuation of working American Airlines crewmembers from Tel Aviv, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that the country is now ‘at war.’ The Israeli security cabinet weighed in today, declaring that the country is in a ‘state of war,’ ” he wrote APA members. “Until further notice, if you are scheduled, assigned, or reassigned a pairing into Israel, refuse the assignment by calling your Chief Pilot or IOC Duty Pilot.”

In February, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA joined six other major American unions in calling for a formal U.S. ban on military supplies to Israel until Netanyahu agrees to a cease-fire with Hamas. “It is clear that the Israeli government will continue to pursue its vicious response to the horrific attacks of October 7 until it is forced to stop,” reads the statement from the AFA-CWA and six other unions. The spokeswoman for the AFA-CWS, Taylor Garland, has also regularly posted and reposted items on social media demanding a Gaza cease-fire and criticizing the military tactics of the Israel Defense Forces.

Garland and the AFA-CWA declined to respond to numerous requests from The Free Press to comment on Israel and whether the organization backs a U.S. flight ban if the Netanyahu government doesn’t agree to a cease-fire with Hamas. Other airline unions, trade associations, and pilots, however, downplayed the idea that politics were driving decisions, but rather cited security and basic economics. A number noted that insurance costs for the U.S. carriers rise in conflict zones, while the overall demand for flights decrease. Also, the length of U.S. flights to Israel require overnight stays for American pilots and crews, something that’s not normally an issue for European or Middle East carriers. 

“Our number one concern as pilots, no matter where we’re flying—it doesn’t have to be to Tel Aviv, it can be to Toledo—it’s got to be safe and secure,” said Dennis Tajer, spokesman for the APA. “We didn’t make that call, but American Airlines did. Oftentimes, they will bring in a third layer, and that’s commercial interests.” 

One pilot from a major U.S. carrier told The Free Press he regularly signs up to fly to Tel Aviv when the ban appears set to be lifted. But then the airline again cancels, following a new security assessment. “It hurts us financially, but the decision is really down to our security department,” said the airman.

The suspension of U.S. flights to Israel has contributed to a broader shock to the Israeli economy since the war with Hamas erupted last October. Israel’s calling up of 360,000 reservists after the Hamas attack, roughly 4 percent of the population, has placed a particular strain on the economy. The country’s growth contracted 1.4 percent during the second quarter of 2024 from the year earlier, according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, and its exports of goods and services dropped 8.3 percent. The Israeli economy experienced a double-digit contraction in the months directly preceding the Hamas attack. 

“Aviation has a big impact on our country because we’re like an island,” said Professor Nicole Adler, dean of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Business School. “I know that we have Syria and Egypt and so on around us. But most traffic is coming in via airlines, and it’s very sad that this war has gone on for as long as it has.”

Since October, Iran and its proxies across the region have made no secret of their desire to constrict international trade and passenger traffic going into and out of Israel. According to Iranian officials, this will both drain Israel’s economy and impose a psychological toll on the broader populace. 

Much of Tehran’s efforts have centered on the Red Sea, where the Iranian-backed Houthi militia has launched hundreds of attacks on tankers and other maritime vessels transiting through the Suez Canal—some on their way to Israel. Just this month, the Yemeni militants launched six missile strikes on international maritime traffic, including on Panamanian- and Saudi-flagged oil tankers.

On Sunday, the Houthis successfully launched a long-range missile at central Israel for the first time. Israeli defense officials said their air defense system largely destroyed the projectile, though some fragments landed on agricultural land and near a railway station. 

This, combined with the reduced air traffic, has prompted self-congratulatory comments from Iranian officials, including Ayatollah Khamenei, that their multifront war against the Jewish state is working. Since becoming Iran’s Supreme Leader in 1989, the 84-year-old cleric has made clear that the path toward liberating Palestine will be achieved as much through making Israel unlivable to its Jewish residents as through open warfare. 

“Four million people will leave Israel. [This means] reverse migration,” Khamenei told a television audience during a June 3 speech marking the death of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. “In other words, the level of perplexity, confusion, and panic among Israeli officials has reached this degree. Pay attention to this! This is very important!”

Jay Solomon is an investigative reporter for The Free Press and author of The Iran Wars. Follow him on X at @jaysolomon, and read his last piece “How Close Is Iran to the Bomb?

To support more of our work, become a Free Press subscriber today:

Subscribe now

The Free Press earns a commission from all qualifying purchases made through book links in this article, including as an Amazon Associate. 

 

Continue Reading

Substacks

To the Woman Who Trashed Me on Twitter Kat Rosenfield

Published

on

By

“Why does the political landscape feel like high school?” asks Kat Rosenfield. (Mean Girls 2004, Entertainment Pictures/Alamy Stock Photo)

Back when Donald Trump was last running for election, as the Great Awokening made its speech-chilling sweep through the American media, a small number of writers and public intellectuals admitted to not being entirely onboard with the new orthodoxy of privilege checking, sensitivity reading, racial affinity groups for 8-year-olds, and so on. These people were, depending on who you ask, either very brave or very stupid.

In public, and especially on Twitter, this cohort became objects of loathing and derision, excoriated by peers for refusing to “read the room.” But behind the scenes, we were inducted into a weird little priesthood of the unorthodox—mostly via Twitter DMs, which served as a sort of backchannel confessional for fellow writers who agreed that things appeared to be going off the rails, but were too afraid of being canceled to admit as much on main.

The first time I received one of these messages, it was from a woman named Jane. She was a colleague—we both had permanent freelance gigs at the same online teen magazine—and wanted me to know that she shared my concerns about the increasing hostility to free expression in progressive spaces. 

“I’m trying to tell myself every day that this censorship, hypersensitivity etc is the natural exuberance of a new movement still feeling out its own limitations,” she wrote to me once, early on. “I spend so much time every day now wondering if my peers *actually* want to suspend the 1st amendment or are just angry/emotional/posturing.”

Jane would pop into my DMs every time a new censorship controversy erupted in our little corner of the internet, which is to say, we chatted frequently. When I wrote my first investigative feature about how the world of young adult fiction had been overtaken by campaigns to shame and censor authors in the name of diversity, she sent me effusive praise; when she worried aloud about her career, I offered advice and sent her leads on paid writing opportunities. When she wanted to vent about cancel culture, she always started by apologizing. She hated to burden me, she said; she just didn’t have anyone else to talk to.

Five years later, I had just published an article about the Covid-era campaign to eject Joe Rogan from Spotify when my friend Zac sent me one of those messages that almost invariably means someone is talking shit about you online: “Sorry,” he wrote,but I thought you should probably know about this.” When I clicked on the link he’d sent, I discovered that I was being mocked via screenshot by a prominent podcaster who has always hated me for unknown reasons; what Zac wanted me to see was one of the first replies.

“I used to work with this person,” it read. “She was not always like this, but this particular strain of contrarianism is like heroin—there are very few casual users.”

The writer of this comment was Jane.

I thought of this incident recently while reading Kat Timpf’s book, which came out last week, I Used to Like You Until. . .  A reflection on, per the subtitle, How Binary Thinking Divides Us, the book’s opening chapters are dedicated to describing the social liabilities of being employed at Fox News, where Timpf is a regular panelist on the late-night talk show Gutfeld! Her politics are more libertarian (small L) than conservative, and her brand of commentary more Phyllis Diller than Bill O’Reilly (she also does stand-up comedy), which makes her a bit of a misfit—if not on Fox News itself, then certainly in the minds of people who equate the network with a particular brand of shouty, Trumpy Republicanism.


Read more

 

Continue Reading

Substacks

September 14, 2024 Heather Cox Richardson

Published

on

By

 

Continue Reading

Shadow Banned

Copyright © 2023 mesh news project // awake, not woke // news, not narrative // deep inside the filter bubble