GOP Gov. Removes Doctor For Opposing Transing Children

Wyoming radiologist Eric Cubin petitioned the federal court in Cheyenne last week to reinstate him to Wyoming’s Board of Medicine.

Cubin was appointed to the board, which oversees the licensing and regulations of the medical profession, by Republican Gov. Mark Gordon in 2023 and reappointed to another four-year term last March. Only weeks after his reappointment, the governor’s chief of staff notified him by telephone that the governor had removed him from the board. After hanging up, he received a letter from the governor, via email, that confirmed his removal and stated its cause.

Gordon wrote, “I have been made aware of your email to the members of the House of Representatives during this last legislative session regarding SF0099 in which you strongly encouraged the members to pass this legislation and criticized the Wyoming Medical Society’s opposition to this bill.”

SF0099 was originally named Chloe’s Law after Chloe Cole, a woman who was given hormone blockers and testosterone at the age of 13 and underwent a mastectomy at 15. The bill prohibits physicians and health care providers in Wyoming from performing surgeries and prescribing drugs to minor children “for the purposes of transitioning a child’s biological sex.”

While overwhelmingly supported by the public and passed by the legislature, Chloe’s Law was vehemently opposed by the Wyoming Medical Society (WMS), a lobbying group that carries a lot of clout in Cheyenne.

Questioning a Medical Society

Cubin, himself a member of the WMS, questioned whether the doctor’s organization was fairly representing its members. Over the course of months, he communicated with WMS leadership, urging them to rethink so-called “gender affirming care” just as multiple nations from Sweden to France and the United Kingdom have done.

Specifically, Cubin’s email cites the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds). Their policy statement refuses to “condone the social affirmation, medical intervention, or surgical mutilation of children and adolescents identifying as transgender or gender nonconforming.”

For months, Cubin “communicated to the entire WMS Board, [that] it is not acceptable to only present one side of an issue in an effort to effect change in social policy.” He implored the WMS at least to acknowledge the disagreement between the ACPeds and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

Instead, the WMS “has partnered with Dr. Michael Sanderson,” president of Wyoming’s chapter of the AAP, Cubin complains.

Since the WMS and AAP continued to walk in lockstep, Cubin concluded that the “the Wyoming Medical Society has been essentially hijacked by the far left.” He asked the WMS to conduct a statewide poll of their membership and to modify its political advocacy accordingly.

Cubin’s concerns about the AAP position bear particular relevance now that 20 state attorneys general have sent a formal letter to the AAP investigating their policy statement. Notably, Gordon’s appointed attorney general did not sign on.

After being rebuffed for months on end, and with a vote on Chloe’s Law looming in the House of Representatives, Cubin petitioned the House. That Feb. 28 email is the free speech and petition to government that triggered his removal.

Court Case

Tuesday’s filing seeks a preliminary injunction to keep him on the board of medicine while the lawsuit works its way through the courts.

“But for his email to the House of Representatives expressing his personal views on Chloe’s Law, Dr. Cubin would still be a member of the Wyoming Board of Medicine,” reads his motion.

On Aug. 29, Cubin filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Wyoming that accused Gordon of having “unlawfully retaliated against Dr. Cubin in violation of his First Amendment free speech rights and right to petition.”

Cubin’s attorney Buck Dougherty of the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit public interest law firm, said that a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy.” It requires the plaintiff to show that 1) he would likely succeed on the merits of the claim and 2) that absent the injunction, the plaintiff would be irreparably harmed.

Details of Resignation

Gordon’s Sept. 19 answer to Cubin’s complaint denies that he “removed the plaintiff from the board of Medicine, in retaliation or otherwise.” Rather, he alleges that Cubin resigned.

Although Gordon’s distinction is irrelevant to the free speech claims of the lawsuit, it does raise the question: When and why did the word “resign” first enter into the record? Gordon’s April 22 letter only uses the word “remove,” concluding, “Therefore, in this instance, sadly, I believe it is best to remove you from the Board of Medicine.” Nowhere does the letter ask Dr. Cubin to resign.

Wyoming statute 9-1-202(b) gives the governor authority to remove any appointed member of a state board “for malfeasance or misconduct in office.” However, “Reason for removal … shall be mailed or delivered to the person to be removed.” That seems to describe Gordon’s actions on April 22.

According to Cubin’s declaration, filed with the motion for preliminary injunction, “Several hours after receiving the letter notifying me of my removal, I reached back out to Mr. Perkins [the governor’s chief of staff] and asked if the Governor would allow me to resign from the Board. I would never have resigned if I did not have a binding letter in hand stating that I had been removed. The following day, Mr. Perkins notified me that he and the Governor would accept my resignation.”

Both parties agree that Cubin sent a one-sentence email to Gordon’s office on April 26, stating, “I hereby resign from the Wyoming State Board of Medicine effective immediately.”

Punishing Free Speech

The question before the court is whether the phone call from the governor’s chief of staff on April 22 and the subsequent removal letter were adverse actions that punished Dr. Cubin’s free speech and his petition to the government.

The letter stated, “I believe your comments on this particular legislation could give doctors who are licensed by the Board of Medicine, a reason to be concerned that you might use your position to advocate for a particular position when considering matters that should be considered absent an agenda or prejudice.” Gordon’s stated concern for the absence of prejudice are interesting for two reasons.

First, the Wyoming statute concerning the board of medicine provides that its president can exclude any member from a given disciplinary vote “due to conflicts of interest or other circumstances.” One wonders why the drastic step of removal was chosen, when a more reasonable remedy was available.

Second, Cubin’s complaint notes that, in the past, board members were not punished for speaking on legislative issues. It states, “former Board member, Rene Hinkle, testified before the Wyoming legislature against giving life-saving care to infants born alive, and she was reappointed by the Governor to the Board after her testimony.” (For the record, Cubin cites this author’s May 31 article to substantiate this point.)

Due to the Wyoming court’s compressed timeline, the governor has two weeks to respond to the motion for preliminary injunction. Therefore, we may have some answers in the next month or so.

If doctors who speak up are disqualified from holding bad medicine to account, who will be left to protect our children?

Jonathan G. Lange is a pastor of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. He has raised his family in Wyoming for two decades, serving parishes in Evanston and Kemmerer. He is a leader of the Wyoming Pastors Network. Follow his blog at OnlyHuman-JL.blogspot.com.