In a stunning turn, left-wing activists officially ended their three-year legal war against an Alabama law shielding kids from gender transition procedures. Securing the state’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act marks a major victory for child protection advocates. Yet, the sudden retreat raises a big question: Why did the challengers back down?

On Tuesday’s “Washington Watch,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins explored this mystery with Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R), who shed light on the state’s defense of the law. Marshall explained the opposition’s flawed argument: “What we saw, and it’s not just in Alabama but across the country, [is] this argument that parents had the right to be able to make a decision of this gender affirming care, which we now know is a complete fraud for their kids.”

Contextualizing the broader fight, Perkins stated, “A little over half the states in the nation have a law similar to [Alabama’s] now in place,” though some still face legal challenges. He highlighted coercive tactics used elsewhere. For example, “In Missouri, the attorney general there, Andrew Bailey, [has discussed] with us that these medical so-called professionals would tell parents, ‘Look, you can have a living son or a dead daughter,’ [to] pressure them.” He added, “So, there really wasn’t a choice that parents were making as it pertains to these surgeries and treatments.”

Marshall agreed. He pointed to an overall breakdown in medical ethics, stating that “one of the cornerstones of our medical system is this idea of informed consent.” And yet, he added, “One of the things that we were able to uncover… is that even at the international level, this organization called WPATH, which establishes these so-called ‘standards of care’ … their doctors and internal documentation and chats acknowledged, ‘We can’t explain this to parents,’” because there isn’t “sufficient evidence to be able to show [parents] studies” to substantiate the procedures being performed.

Ultimately, he stressed, “If we can’t engage parents with informed consent about medicines and surgeries on kids, then we’ve completely lost what medicine is truly about.”

Perkins reflected on the culture shift, stating that “seven years ago … this was a freight train just barreling down the track, and anyone who dared try to get in front of it was just … run over. But we’ve seen the tide turn.” Concerning the Alabama law, he asked Marshall for his insight as to why the challengers dropped the case, probing whether it signaled a broader retreat. While he isn’t entirely sure, Marshall emphasized that it’s at least “clear that it wasn’t because they lacked the resources.”

He continued, “[M]any of the left-leaning transgender pushing groups across the country have funded this litigation. … Even in Alabama, we had the entire weight of the federal government against us during the Biden administration.” So, “they didn’t give up because they didn’t have the resources to pursue the claim.” However, Marshall believes part of scoring their victory was because they received an opportunity to “uncover the truth.” In this three-year battle, he explained, “we exposed the scandal, and we showed the world what was taking place with our kids. And that’s the reason why I believe these plaintiffs have raised the flag of surrender and have gone about their own business.”

Perkins emphasized that his interpretation of “them backing off… is this does not bode well for them.” As he suggested, “If they thought they could… use this as a tipping point, they would have continued to pursue their legal challenge.” However, it’s possible that they “see this trending away from them.” As such, he speculated, the challengers retreated — even before the Supreme Court landed a ruling.

Marshall agreed, noting that “it’s good news across the country — in the world — [to] have … the plaintiffs abandon their challenge in our state and recognize that not only were we making sure that we were protecting kids, but there’s no legal basis for which these plaintiffs can prevail in cases like this.” So, “the fact that they have dismissed their case in Alabama, where we have the most robust record … in the public domain to be able to show the absolute medical and legal fraud that was occurring here, should demonstrate the fallacy of the arguments of the plaintiffs thus far.” It also shows “how much states are doing to be able to protect kids, particularly in the 26 states that have already weighed in with laws like Alabama’s.”

“[T]his is an exciting time,” he added. Perkins agreed. “My takeaway from this is, when the emperor has no clothes, go ahead and say you got a naked emperor.” There’s no use in dancing around the elephant in the room, he argued, because the issue is rooted in that people have been “afraid to say anything” against these transgender procedures and policies. The whole conversation was “kind of running in tandem with the cancel culture,” Perkins said, “so people were fearful of just speaking truth.”

“And look,” Marshall confessed, “we were losing these cases to begin with. And it was part of the strategy of the Left.” However, “when we don’t allow for judges, even conservative judges, to understand the truth behind how these so-called ‘standards of care’ were developed,” that’s when the issue spirals. But now “that we know the truth,” he concluded, “it’s clear why we’re going to ultimately win these cases.”