What If My Child Identifies as a Quadriplegic?
Why Should Surgical Alteration End With Sex Parts?
The Eighth Circus, the US Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, just upheld an Arkansas law that had been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court. Back in ancient times (circa 2021), The Land of Opportunity (Bear State, Toothpick State, the Wonder State, etc) took objection to the practice of chemically or surgically altering children under the notion that they’d been born in the wrong body.
The legislature passed a law and then overrode the RINO governor’s veto to prohibit the practice. The usual progressive suspects lost their collectivist minds and sued.
Ironically, the Askansas ACLU argued, and still insists, that chemically or surgically mutilating children is a parental right and protected by the Constitution.
I’m wondering where they’d land if a parent insisted their child identified as a quadriplegic and that gave them the right to have their limbs amputated. How about blindness? Maybe they were meant to be born blind or deaf or legless or armless or whatever. We’re having fins and gills surgically attached; junior thinks he’s a fish.
If that’s a parental right at all, then the state has no right to interfere with the parents' will (ironic because parental rights don’t exist at the ACLU when it does not advance the ACLU’s left-leaning proclivities).
What if the parent says the child identifies as a sex trafficked minor who enjoys having their legal guardians and whoever they invite over, bang them like a broken screen door in a hurricane?
Jenny Jean Daisy Louise says she identifies as a sex doll! We’re just helping her be her authentic self.
ACLU to the rescue?
There are plenty of Democrat lawmakers who defend minor attracted persons (see also, child molesters, especially if they are violent repeat offenders here illegally). They are also, with rare exceptions, all in on the surgical modification of children with or without parental consent, that transgender-agenda double-edged sword the ACLU has chosen to carry.
I hope you’d object to any mutilation, even if Jr says he’s right-handed and the only way to make sure is to amutate the left. Arm, penis, what difference should that make? This is supposed to be about body positivity.
I am truly curious where the red line is, not that they wouldn’t move it when it becomes politically convenient. That’s the foundation of their legal arguments, which the 8th Circuit just tossed out to protect the children from these monsters.
The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled 8-2 to overturn a lower court ruling and said the ban was not unconstitutional. The court cited a Supreme Court ruling that upheld a similar ban in Tennessee. …
However, the appeals ruling went further than the Supreme Court decision and said that the transgender ban did not violate the parents' 14th Amendment rights to due process.
"This court finds no such right in this Nation’s history and tradition," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton in reference to the contested parental right to procure transgender medical treatment for children.
You can’t amputate your kids (arms, legs, breasts, or penis) just because they are your kids and you say that’s what’s best for them. There is a) a state’s interest in protecting them from harm, and b) there’s no constitutional right that ever said otherwise.
Sounds sensible.
Speaking of sensible, never trust someone who thinks the world is overpopulated to involve themselves in the vaccine business or the politically fashionable neutering of children.
But the ACLU still thinks,
"This is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors, and their families," Dickson said.
"The state had every opportunity and failed at every turn to prove that this law helps children; in fact, this is a dangerous law that harms children," she added. "The law has already had a profound impact on families across Arkansas who all deserve a fundamental right to do what is best for their children."
The data proves that if you leave them alone, 97% of them will outgrow it, even if the ACLU, Democrats, parents with Munchausen by Proxy, and #woke public educators don’t. The science also shows how dangerous the chemical treatments are (side effects include death) and how post-transgender-blender kids are just as likely to attempt suicide after being drugged and or mutilated.
There are no upsides to any chemical or surgical treatment unless enriching doctors on unnecessary surgeries and big pharma for drugs they’ll have to take forever are the upside. Oh, and it neuters them, which the depopulationists love especially if it’s white suburban kids.
This ruling, like many others, leaves the left with numerous problems. The science and the tidal wave of public opinion are against them. States are lining up to join Arkansas and Tennessee. And still, they insist that parents who have no right to stop schools from exposing kids to porn and grooming have a right to mutilate and drug them when it advances the same agenda.
There is no parental right to harm children, just like there’s no right for any adult to harm any other adult without their consent, and even then, the bandwidth for that is thin. It is why the folks who want to mutilate kids try to insist that children who can’t consent to a long list of dangerous things they oppose can consent to dangerous things they embrace.
It is why states like Arkansas, Tennessee, my home state of New Hampshire, and many others have stepped up to protect children from not just harm but this broken, partisan worldview that tries to convince them to hurt themselves.
»»»» Thanks so much for reading. Please consider subscribing or upgrading to paid. ««««
I will never understand why parents would do this to their children. So sad.
> There is no parental right to harm children
The issue isn't whether there is a parental right to do anything. The issue is whether there is a state power to override parental decisions.
If such a power exists, it must be possible for it to be delegated to the state by individuals. What person, acting as an individual, could tell another parent what kind of care is allowed, or required, for that parent's children?
Note that once you cross that line -- the one where you pretend that the state has a power it cannot have, so you can avoid an outcome that you do not like -- you eventually end up with DCFS.
Which is to say, either no parenting decisions are up for a vote, or all of them are. There is no in between. (As Ron Paul used to say, you can't give up less than 100% of a principle.)
On the other hand, if what you really want is to get rid of gender-affirming surgery, all you have to do is stop using tax money to pay for it, and stop forcing insurance companies to pay for it. That is, you stop government from exercising other powers that no individual could delegate to it. The gender surgery business (for both kids and adults) would be out of business by next week.
That is, by correcting two wrongs (eliminating abuses of government power), you get a right (eliminating a tragic consequence); whereas by adding a third wrong (adding a new abuse of government power), you get an ever-growing number of wrongs (all the things people do to each other once they can punish parents for doing things they don't like).
It's amazing how that works, isn't it? Think of all the other things we currently fight about that would just go away if we focused on eliminating seminal abuses of government power, instead of splitting constitutional hairs regarding how their unintended consequences should be regulated.