9th Circuit to Decide Legality of Medical Experimentation on Kids
- Alex Baker
- Sep 23
- 7 min read
Updated: Sep 30
Oct. 8 Oral Argument in Crucial Hudacko case against UCSF Transgender Docs
UPDATE
When: Wed. Oct. 8, 2025, 9:30 am Pacific
Ted's case is second-to-last on docket, hard to say when it will be called.
Where: Link to Live Stream
Surgeon and WPATH member Janet Lee surgically implanted a puberty blocker in 17-y.o. Spencer Hudacko's arm. This was at the direction of UCSF's Stephen Rosenthal (endocrinologist) and Diane Ehrensaft (psychologist). This also directly violated a court order which prohibited “any gender identity related surgery.” They did it anyway, behind the back of Spencer's father, Ted Hudacko.
The Judges are now literally going to decide if it's legal for government doctors to medically experiment on children without proper consent. It’s going to be streamed on Zoom, and all are invited to court-watch.
We put “involuntary human medical experimentation” in the Complaint for very good reason. The Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss, which we opposed. Judge Susan B. Illston dismissed our complaint. (See Excerpt of Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-26). We're 2 years into this case. Ted has not gotten any trial. He has not gotten discovery. We're still at the pleading stage. When reviewing a Motion to Dismiss, the Appeals Court is required to assume all the alleged facts as true, and uphold the dismissal only if the Complaint fails as a matter of law.
What is "Qualified Immunity?"
They dismissed Ted's case finding that these doctors that trans-ed the child are protected by something called “qualified immunity.” “Qualified immunity” is a rule that says a government actor – which these UCSF doctors are – are immune from lawsuit unless we can say that no reasonable government official would have believed this was legal.
Ted hired a new attorney and law firm just for oral argument – Myron Moscovitz – a very experienced Supreme Court and Appellate lawyer. He feels we should prevail on our argument that no reasonable government official believed it was OK to do this implant. At the bottom of this article is the opening speech I drafted, according to his instruction.
Didn't the Child's Mother Consent?
Yes, but she may not. Basically, our argument is two-fold. First, surgery was prohibited in a court order, and the UCSF doctors knew that. In fact, UCSF is explicitly mentioned in the court order. (See ER Vol. 6, p. ER 993)
In our Appellant's Opening Brief, we’re arguing that Ted's right to prohibit surgery arises under the U.S. Constitution. That's important in a civil rights case, where a recognized constitutional right must be at issue. There’s a long line of U.S. Supreme Court cases saying a parent has the fundamental right to direct the medical care of his child. (See Appellant's Opening Brief, pp 38-39). If Ted's right to prohibit surgery didn't arise from his parental rights under the Constitution, then where else could it have come from?
Second, not even a child’s mother can consent to a child’s sterilization. That’s under a California Supreme Court case Valerie N. (See Appellant's Reply Brief, p. 8). It's not only the law, it's common sense. Children under 18 (I would say at least 21) simply do not have the maturity to decide they never want children. They just don't, and nobody honestly thinks they do.
Besides, Christine Underhill was lied to. She may (or may not) have actually believed these doctors that "gender affirming care" was "safe and effective," "medically necessary" "suicide prevention" and the "standard of care." But they lied to her. Curiously, Christine has disappeared from the case entirely. It's hard to blame her. She either gave the go-ahead for an experiment on her own son, or else she must admit she was brutally lied to.
What is "Judicial Notice," Why is it Important, and What Happened?
Judicial notice is a legal procedure where the judge in the case is required to acknowledge a fact that is not reasonably subject to dispute. A case can turn on whether the judge will take judicial notice or not. We requested judicial notice of several historical examples of involuntary human medical experimentation, including the Nazi medical sterilization experiments from WWII, which led to the adoption of the Nuremberg Code.
We also requested judicial notice of the practice of Lobotomy. Some people, including me, are calling transgender “The New Lobotomy.” In addition, we requested judicial notice of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, of MKULTRA, and the Leo Stanley experiments. The U.S. government has admitted all these experiments certainly took place. Tragically, there have been many examples of state-funded experimentation – transgender is just another in a long series. Our idea with judicial notice is to show that involuntary human medical experimentation is plausible ("plausibility" is a key element in the federal pleading standard). After all, if it happened before, we reason, it can happen again. Right? Judge Illston denied judicial notice. That’s one of the issues we’re appealing.
Let's Not Forget Defendant Asaf Orr
Asaf Orr is UCSF lawyer and a trans-activist attorney who is deeply involved in this case. Among other things, Orr co-hosted a Continuing Legal Education ("CLE") seminar with (of all people) Ted's off-duty Family Court Judge Joni Hiramoto, in which they taught Minor's Counsels the trans party line.
“Puberty blockers are fully reversible," Orr lied, "100% reversible.”
Podcasts about Orr and Hiramoto – AMA is openly communist, Involuntary Human Medical Experimentation, Pt 1, Involuntary Human Medical Experimentation Pt. 2, and Short Interview with Ted Hudacko.
What are some of the risks of these "gender affirming" drugs?
Remember, the factual issues around so-called “gender affirming care” have never gone to trial. Never (unless you count the top-secret Jeff Younger case in Los Angeles, where Judge Mark Juhas completely ignored the 3 days of expert testimony, having already pre-judged the case entirely). We need to hear from expert witnesses about what puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones actually do to people over the long term.
Of course, sterility is a huge issue. But so is brain development. When drugs block puberty, they block brain development. The human brain continues to develop well into the 20’s. They are creating a population of adults who not only still look like children, but who also think and act like children. Who would that benefit? I'm reminded of lobotomist Walter Freeman's coining of the term "surgically induced childhood."
Erin Friday of Our Duty Contributed an Amicus Brief
I should also mention that attorney and activist Erin Friday wrote and filed an Amicus Brief for Ted. She focused on the parental rights aspect. Ted's parental rights are at issue, but so are children’s rights. Children have a right to go through puberty, and the gender ideologues have taken that right away, in order to further their experiment and make buckets of money (over $209,000 in Ted's case alone). While there have been many "transgender" cases in the news, so far nobody has been held liable. That’s what we’re fighting for.
UPDATE: 9-29-2025 9th Circuit Denies Judicial Notice
On Monday 9-29-2025, the Judges of the 9th Circuit issued a Order DENYING of all three of Ted's appeal court Requests for Judicial Notice. #1 was over Trump's Executive Order, #2 was the HHS Report, #3 was certain statements in the Skrmetti SCOTUS opinion. The Order contained no reasoning or explanation whatsoever, a Summary Denial or what we sometimes affectionately call a "postcard denial."
Note: We were only seeking notice that the president, HHS and SCOTUS said these things, not the things they said are necessarily fact. These are only the RJNs on documents that occurred since we filed the appeal and since Trump took office. The appeal court must still rule on our Request for Judicial Notice of the past historical examples of involuntary human medial experimentation, which the District Court denied.
Links to Some Key Documents
The Simple 5 Min Opening I Drafted
Good morning honorable judges of the Ninth Circuit. I am attorney Myron Moscovitz, representing Plaintiff and Appellant Ted Hudacko. We may hear a lot of complicated arguments today, but really, it's quite simple.
This appeal follows a Motion to Dismiss. This case was dismissed on a finding that these State defendant doctors are shielded by qualified immunity. As we all know, qualified immunity applies when a state actor violates a right that was not "well-established" at the time. Conversely, if State Actors violate a right that is well-established, qualified immunity will not protect them. The law of qualified immunity not disputed.
A Family Court Order established that Ted had the unilateral right to prohibit "any gender identity related surgery" on his minor son. This too is not disputed. A long line of U.S. Supreme Court cases have established under the Liberty Clause that a father has the right to direct the medical care of his son, and this certainly includes the right to prohibit experimental surgery in the name of "gender affirming care."
These landmark cases are, again, undisputed. The question then becomes: if Ted's right to prohibit surgery did not arise under the Liberty Clause, where else could it possibly have come from? No Defendant has attempted or succeeded in answering that question. Neither has the court below. Ted's right to prohibit surgery arises under the Liberty Clause, and it was well-established.
No reasonable government official believed that it was legal to perform experimental surgery on the minor child. No reasonable government official believed that it was legal to sterilize the minor child, which is exactly what is alleged to have happened. No reasonable government official believed that it was legal to fabricate a false "standard of care" so as to obtain the pretense of consent from the child's mother only by lying to her, pretending that "gender affirming care" is safe and effective, when - no it is not.
These are factual disputes that - here at the pleading stage – must be assumed in our favor. These facts need to be tried with expert witnesses. Qualified immunity should not shield these government actors. The Attorneys involved, while ostensibly private actors, all knew what they were doing. They easily satisfy the Joint Action Test. The entire case should be overturned and remanded to finally – once and for all – try the facts of this case, including discovery, and let the chips fall where they may.
I am Alex Baker.
contact me: alex@pmjmp.org