२८ सप्टेंबर, २०२३
"What we are practicing here is not voodoo. I think our justice system will see that there’s enough science to support this, that they will understand that this is appropriate care."
Said nurse practitioner Katherine Mistretta, one of the plaintiffs, quoted in "Montana’s Ban on Transition Care for Minors Is Blocked" (NYT)("A state judge in Montana on Wednesday temporarily blocked a law that would have banned transition care for children under 18 starting on Sunday, while a lawsuit filed by patients and medical professionals proceeds").
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५६ टिप्पण्या:
Banning elective medical treatment is well within the power of govt. What I don't see is the power of judge to cancel legislation. If the people dont like law the people will change their representation.
The issue isn’t voodoo or not. The issue is should minor children and their lunatic parents be required to wait until the age of majority until there is surgery or the use of powerful drugs.
In Nebraska, a medmal lawsuit has been filed by Luka Hein against Nebraska Medicine and UNMC for removing her healthy female breasts. No informed consent. And after that surgery, they wanted to remove her uterus but her parents put their foot down.
This state court judge will be reversed in short order. The State of MT has a compelling interest in protect children from harm.
Many of the parents of these poor kids are mentally ill too.
"What we are practicing here is not voodoo. I think our justice system will see that there’s enough science to support this, that they will understand that this is appropriate care[, she claimed without evidence.]" Fixed.
"Enough" science? I assume she means scientific evidence, but you know what happens when you assume something...
“Transition care.”
Madness.
These people are lost in a lethal fog of their own making. We need not —I say must not— join them there.
Question: is there a greater likelihood that someone who has not transitioned at an early age will successfully sue the doctors or the hospital system for the lack of surgery/medication, or that someone who would like to have orgasms and a sexual relationship (but cannot due to the completed procedure) will do so?
If someone in the room brings this point up in the presence of activists, are they shot on sight or discreetly ushered into a sealed capsule and locked up for the next ten years? I have to believe that the future will look back on all this with a degree of disbelief and horror at what they did with such crudeness and rudimentary unfinished "skills".
Past generations had lobotomies, we've got this to drag around. Skilled attorneys will empty those deep pockets.
“Gender affirming care”
Orwell would be proud.
It's hard to imagine how the judge could have gotten the balance of harms more wrong.
"What we are practicing here is not voodoo."
Funny, that anyone has to say that.
It wasn’t voodoo when the UK then and Iran to this day sterilized homosexuals. It was just wrong.
Whitmer signs final bill outlawing child marriage in Michigan
There is NO WAY that a minor is mature enough, to make a life changing decision, like getting married. Marriage is a HUGE decision, and IF someone Thinks that they "need" to get married, they can CERTAINLY Wait until they are adults! It's not some minor lifestyle thing, like castration is!
"There's enough science to support this" and we'll find it or just keep looking till we do.
The age at which a person can make informed consent isn't really a scientific question though.
Abortion terminates a viable human life.
Sex is genetic. Gender is sex-correlated attributes (e.g. sexual orientation).
Transgender conversion therapy simulates and indoctrinated boys and girls through medical, surgical, or psychiatric corruption.
Levine's Dreams of Mengele
Another wicked solution with progressive effect.
Wow a Nurse Practitioner eh? Figures.
They'll also diagnose you as ADHD and prescribe Adderall while u wait.
What won't they do?
As the tv hit, I am Jazz, explicitly demonstrates, early use of hormone blockers stunt the growth of the penis and scrotal sac so much that if the child wishes to proceed to surgery, part of the colon, the peritoneal layers, or, experimentally, aborted fetal tissue must be used to build the "neovagina." Unfortunately, if colon tissue is used, hormonal signals can spread any colon infection to the colon tissue lining the "neovagina" even if the "neovagina" is not directly affected. E-coli also form more frequently in the "neovagina" alone, as can colon cancer. Peritoneal tissue is prone to rejection and thin enough to cause ruptures between the colon and "neovagina." No matter which method is used, the child treated with hormone blockers then surgery isn't just extremely infertile for life: he never experiences orgasm and must use dildo-like inserts at least once a day for life to keep the open wound open, sometimes several times a day. For life. Girls surgically "becoming" boys also experience infertility, severe osteoporosis, loss of orgasm, and lifelong urinary infections. And many severe consequences occur from the blockers themselves.
Let's face facts: these doctors and parents are permanently rendering their children more prone to cancers, unable to have children, and depriving them of sexual pleasure JUST by using puberty blockers, not even moving on to surgery, and it often renders surgery difficult if not impossible.
This isn't a benign alternative measure.
I'm almost to the point that I'll accept the lefties aborting most of their kids and sterilizing the survivors. It may be the only way to be rid of them.
I didn't know the Court did Science.
Hopefully when the dust clears the good people of the state will demand that medical licenses of the folks pushing this level of mutilation are revoked. That’s the least level of pushback these people deserve. Hopefully too the civil cases that are coming will bankrupt the gender industry as well.
People watching their little golden statuettes getting put on the smelter will escalate their fanaticism. The more damage their beliefs accrue, the more frantic the escalation becomes, regardless of the appearance of panic.
Remember how this escalated:
. from simply dressing and behaving weirdly
. to pretending they actually are what they're pretending to be
. to medically altering themselves in the attempt to realize their pretense
. to demanding *you* accept they are what they're pretending to be
. to attempting to gas light you into believing gender isn't sex related
. to cranking up the gas to convince you there's no such thing as biological sex
. to demanding *you* have sex with them
. to demanding their right to indoctrinate young people
. to demanding young people be allowed to mutilate themselves to make play toys
. to demanding the legal system punish *you* for not accepting they are what they pretend to be
All the while being cheered from the sidelines by a horde of useful idiots who not only don't see the slippery slope but happily cheer on the mentally ill as they attempt to drag everyone into reality denial.
All helped along by the media and those who refuse to realize the slope is being greased.
It is voodoo. Actually, voodoo has more basis behind it.
Heinlein termed this time period "The Crazy Years."
Dave said,
"Many of the parents of these poor kids are mentally ill too."
Munchausen by proxy.
Tina Trent @ 8:47: Way too much real science there! Are you trying to throw shade on a self-declared nurse practitioner?!?
Oligonicella @ 9:29: Nice enumeration of the near-infinite steps into the full crazy.
No, it's not voodoo. What we have here is Munchausen by proxy on rampant display.
It would be better if the doctors were performing voodoo. At least then they'd only be cutting up animals.
Tangental:
Drop the "I believe" and install "I've had all the hormones and surgeries" as requirements for trans athletes to compete in women's sports and you'll see that problem disappear.
It's one thing for them to think "I can take doing estrogen to get the headline." and quite another to look down and think "I gotta cut off all my junk to compete."
Keep in mind, Leah Thomas still has his dick and balls.
No not voodoo but it also is at extreme odds with “first do no harm,” which was such a clear and unambiguous motto that one would think the transmadness would have should have been questioned long before statutory measures were implemented. Why can’t Big Medicine police their profession? How did mutilation of children become “affirmative care” without any form of informed consent? Does Obamacare promote munchausen by government?
Tina Trent said...Let's face facts: these doctors and parents are permanently rendering their children more prone to cancers, unable to have children, and depriving them of sexual pleasure JUST by using puberty blockers, not even moving on to surgery, and it often renders surgery difficult if not impossible.
This isn't a benign alternative measure.
Whatever happened to "First, do no harm"?
Johns Hopkins disagrees. The majority are permanently harmed. An unknown diversity will transition to adulthood with their sex-correlated gender intact. A minority may benefit, but those individuals cannot be predicted. Just do it, anyway?
"Funny, that anyone has to say that."
Exactly. What a low standard: "not voodoo... enough science..."
The question is whether the legislature can ban it, not whether it would be malpractice to do it if there were no legislation. It's a matter of weighing pros and cons and the medical profession may weigh things one way but when does that prevent the govt from weighing things the other way, toward refraining from doing possible harm?
"The question is whether..."
I mean: in this lawsuit.
Other lawsuits are based on malpractice.
I'm just saying there is more room for a legislature to legislate, to set the balance differently.
Inflicting children like this is pure evil.
I have been told that law professors love hypotheticals. Here’s one, though I’m sure I am not couching it in the best legal phraseology.
Let’s suppose that, following the judge’s decision, somewhere in Montana a minor female child is talked into “gender-affirming surgery” by healthcare professionals with an agenda, and, like Luka Hein (see Dave Begley’s comment at 6:02), receives a double mastectomy. Then let’s suppose that some years later she, again like Luka Hein, chooses to detransition. I get that she would have standing to sue the healthcare professionals, but would she also have standing to sue the judge?
This is of some interest to me because I now have a 14 month old granddaughter who already shows an engineer’s curiosity — she takes things apart to see how they work and (tries to) put them back together. She also sometimes plays with toy trucks. Would that cause some dipshit schoolteacher to recommend her for “gender affirming” surgery at some time in the future?
I predict that studies will demonstrate that the cohort of transitioned will have dramatically high suicide rates, terrible mental health, and below average lifespans.
The legislature shouldn't be obliged to await those outcomes before it acts.
How is the subjective decision of a prepubescent or pubescent child supported by science?
What? Follow the money science?
Ann: you ask at 10:21 if the legislature has (or should have) the power to ban this medical “(mal)practice.” I think it could achieve the effect of a ban by requiring anyone involved in “transition care” to carry an appropriate level of insurance against claims by de-transitioners. Maybe also declare that they will bear a higher burden of proof that their “science” justified their actions toward this class of future plaintiffs.
I would propose the insurance level be set at $1 Billion per occurrence.
These medical bureaucrats (I'm done w/honorifics) wouldn't know the Hippocratic Oath if it walked up & bit them in the ass. If you're willing to don a useless mask & studiously ignore the efficacy of natural immunity, then permanently mutilating 10-year-olds is an easy step.
"Transition care"
you mean "sterilizing children", you lying monsters
Ann Althouse said...
The question is whether the legislature can ban it,
It's child abuse, which the legislature most certainly CAN ban.
If teh FDA can ban procedures and drugs, then States most certainly can do the same. Re-read the 9th and 10th Amendments, then tell us where in the US Constitution the power to decide what medical procedures are legal is exclusively reserved for teh Federal Gov't.
Because I will admit I missed that part of the US Constititon.
“Gender affirming care”... Orwell would be proud.
No different than calling on demand abortion "reproductive healthcare".
Should children be allowed face tattoo's? How about a pack of cigs and a quart of whiskey?
Perhaps they should also be allowed to decapitate an arm or a leg.
The 1000% rise of gender dysphoria in the last 5 years did not happen organically, there is an evil agenda behind this sudden shift.
JIM said...
"The 1000% rise of gender dysphoria in the last 5 years did not happen organically, there is an evil agenda behind this sudden shift."
Some cancers spread and kill remarkably quickly. This is one such.
@Owen:
Feel free to copy and use it. I'm sure it could be made more detailed.
Ironclad,
"the good people of the state will demand that medical licenses of the folks pushing this level of mutilation... "
Actually, if these folks find some comfort by holding onto those licenses while they wait their turn at the gallows, that's perfectly fine with me.
The Progressives are all in on Fascism and Eugenics, just like they were in the first half of the 20th century.
WEF was founded by Klaus Schwab, he grew up in a wealthy Nazi family. Many wealthy americans like Joe Kennedy and even a young student JFK thought facism was a way to go. It would satisfy the paroles while preserving the elites wealth. Read their letters.
The first half of the 20th century saw the rise of the Eugenics Societies among Progressives. Many famous trust in the 1930s were awarding cash prizes awards to Hitler for his work on Eugenics. What better way to deal with the mentally ill than neutering them. We've come full circle.
but when does that prevent the govt from weighing things the other way, toward refraining from doing possible harm?
Abortion.
I was going to bet that Montana has a law banning female circumcision. Turns out they don't.
Whatever happened to "First, do no harm"?
It's a wicked solution. A Pro-Choice [ethical] religion. They're not treating humans, but rather diversity blocs. They share a confidence that borders on a god-complex.
Abortion
A "burden" is a burden is a progressive path and pathology.
.Whatever happened to "First, do no harm"?
That went out the window as soon as society accepted embracing the NewAge "alternative" to Medicine. As I quoted today from a report on journalism - note the first sentence:
"The tone [in media reports on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)] was overwhelmingly positive, with most of the positive articles (145/176) neglecting to disclose the potential harms of SCAM. Few articles provided a recommendation to speak with a healthcare provider (24/176). Articles tended to appeal to SCAM’s long tradition of use (115/176), naturalness (80/176), and convenience (72/176). They used vague pseudoscientific jargon (105/176) and failed to cite sources for the claims that SCAM use is supported by science (39/176)."
With all the "Wellness" centers going up, even in hospitals, anyone can see Medicine itself is not far behind. Nursing cults have long been a thing, so there's already rot within to contend with.
There is no question if a state legislature can ban it.
I'm very surprised you don't know this.
6th Circuit rules that of course States can outlaw child sterilization:
https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/CA6-Opinion.pdf
Before starting down this road, it is well to remember that the most deeply rooted tradition in this country is that we look to democracy to answer pioneering public-policy questions, meaning that federal courts must resist the temptation to invoke an unenumerated guarantee to “substitute” their views for those of legislatures.
No such expansion is warranted here. This country does not have a “deeply rooted”
tradition of preventing governments from regulating the medical profession in general or certain
treatments in particular, whether for adults or their children. Quite to the contrary in fact. State
and federal governments have long played a critical role in regulating health and welfare, which
explains why their efforts receive “a strong presumption of validity.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S.
312, 319 (1993); see Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684, 690 (6th Cir. 2006). State governments
have an abiding interest “in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession,”
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 731, and “preserving and promoting the welfare of the child,” Schall
v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 265 (1984) (quotation omitted). These interests give States broad
power, even broad power to “limit[] parental freedom,” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158,
167 (1944); see Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 605–06 (1979), when it comes to medical
treatment, cf. Watson v. Maryland, 218 U.S. 173, 176 (1910).
More from the 6th:
https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/CA6-Opinion.pdf
Washington v. Glucksberg puts a face on these points. 521 U.S. 702. Harold Glucksberg claimed that Washington State’s ban on physician-assisted suicide violated his patients’ due process rights. Id. at 707–08. The Court disagreed. It allowed the State to prohibit individuals from receiving the drugs they wanted and their physicians wished to provide, all despite the “personal and profound” liberty interests at stake and all despite the reality that the drugs at issue often could be used for other purposes. Id. at 725–26. The Court reasoned that there was no “deeply rooted” tradition of permitting individuals or their doctors to override contrary state medical laws. Id. at 727. The right to refuse medical treatment in some settings, it reasoned, cannot be “transmuted” into a right to obtain treatment, even if both involved “personal and profound” decisions. Id. at 725–26. Nor did the observation that some rights under the Due Process Clause arose from concern over “personal autonomy” lead to the conclusion that “any and all important, intimate, and personal decisions are so protected.” Id. at 727.
https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/CA6-Opinion.pdf
Parental rights do not alter this conclusion because parents do not have a constitutional right to obtain reasonably banned treatments for their children. Plaintiffs counter that, as parents, they have a substantive due process right “to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000) (plurality opinion). At one level of generality, they are right. Parents usually do know what’s best for their children and in most matters (where to live, how to live, what to eat, how to learn, when to be exposed to mature subject matter) their decisions govern until the child reaches 18. But becoming a parent does not create a right to reject democratically enacted laws. The key problem is that the claimants overstate the parental right by climbing up the ladder of generality to a perch—in which parents control all drug and other medical treatments for their children—that the case law and our traditions simply do not support. Level of generality is everything in constitutional law, which is why the Court requires “a ‘careful description’ of the asserted fundamental liberty interest.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (quotation omitted).
The plaintiffs insist that these treatments are not new and do not involve experimental care. Even if that were true, that alone does not give parents a fundamental right to acquire them. As long as it acts reasonably, a state may ban even longstanding and nonexperimental treatments for children. It is difficult, at any rate, to maintain that these treatments have a meaningful pedigree. It has been about a decade since the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the key medical organization relied upon by the plaintiffs, first said that hormone treatments could be used by all adolescents, no matter how young. And some of the same European countries that pioneered these treatments now express caution about them and have pulled back on their use. How in this setting can one maintain that long-term studies support their use—and that the Constitution requires it?
https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/CA6-Opinion.pdf
The kill shot:
Invocation of medical associations and other experts in the medical community does not alter this conclusion. The plaintiffs separately frame their claim as the right of parents “to obtain established medical treatments” for their children, emphasizing the many medical organizations that now support this treatment for adults and minors. Ky. R.2 ¶ 80. At least three problems stand in the way of accepting this argument. One is that the plaintiffs never engage with, or explain how they meet, the “crucial” historical inquiry to establish this right. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721. There is, to repeat, no such history or tradition. Grounding new substantive due process rights in historically rooted customs is the only way to prevent life-tenured federal judges from seeing every heart-felt policy dispute as an emerging constitutional right.
...
Kentucky and Tennessee decided that such off-label use in this area presents unacceptable dangers. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 311.372(2)(a)–(b); Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-101(b), (e), (g). Many medical professionals and many medical organizations may disagree. But the Constitution does not require these two States to view these treatments in the same way as the majority of experts or to allow drugs for all uses simply because the FDA approved them for others. Cf. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, 444 F.3d 502, 505 (6th Cir. 2006) (explaining that off-label use is legal “[a]bsent state regulation”).
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा