Citizen Petition from Lauren H. Schwartz, et al.

The commenter, identifying as an ally of transgender women, opposes the proposed REMS framework. They argue that requiring trans women on estrogen to enroll in a patient registry is dangerous and could lead to harm or violence.

The commenter opposes the citizen petition, characterizing it as a misrepresentation of scientific data and an attempt to penalize transgender women. They argue that estrogen is a standard medication that should be treated as such.

The commenter, identifying as a social work professional, opposes the petition on the grounds that it is based on bigotry and misunderstanding. They argue that hormone replacement therapy is not a communicable disease and that the petition puts transgender people in danger.

Lauren H. Schwartz shares a personal testimonial about how hormone therapy has significantly improved her mental health and quality of life. She supports the action by highlighting the positive impact of access to this care on her personal well-being and ability to function in her community.

The commenter opposes the creation of a registry for trans women seeking gender-affirming care, arguing that such a policy is unconstitutional and violates the right to healthcare. They assert that trans women should be treated as women and that the proposed policy lacks scientific and moral justification.

The commenter opposes the proposed restrictions and registration of transgender women, arguing that they are human beings who do not pose an inherent danger. They suggest that the government should focus on more pressing issues like gun violence and environmental impacts instead.

The commenter supports the proposed action, arguing that it protects access to gender-affirming care which they describe as life-saving. They characterize the opposing view as an ideological overreach and state that research supports the positive impact of such care.