By Milt Harris ——Bio and Archives--July 19, 2023
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
If you ever need more proof that what the left claims is inclusion is really an agenda, look no further than the unlawful push of governments into the home. Parents are not all alike and their parenting styles can vary widely, but loving and caring parents are an important building block in any child’s life.
A large part of parenting is knowing when to say no. Children often want to do things that aren’t in their best interest. That’s when parents have to step in and explain the reasons why they are saying no. This happens all along their growth curve. Obviously, when the kids are young the decisions are less complicated and easier to make and explain, but as they get older it can become more difficult.
When a child thinks that they are transgender, it’s a lot more complicated than saying no to borrowing the car or going to a party. Still, it’s the parents right until the child is eighteen years old, which is considered the age of competency, to say no to allowing a young naïve person to ruin their lives. That right is even more important today, because today’s parents know that transgenderism has become a social contagion. A disease, hatched by and spread by the woke, radical left. A disease unceasingly pushed upon today’s youth at school, sporting events, in the movies, on TV and practically everywhere.
Jonathon Turley, who works at George Washington University, and is a law expert, wrote a column on the extremes that the United Kingdom is going to ensure that parental rights are destroyed. In the column, he states that the police in the U.K. can make the determination that:
"parents who refuse to use the alternative pronouns for their children or refuse to pay for their transitioning could be criminally prosecuted."
Keep in mind “transitioning” often consists of unnecessary body mutilation and/or chemical sterilization.
Turley went on to say:
"As the debate rages in the United States over parental notification and authority in cases involving transgender children, the United Kingdom is embroiled in a controversy over a law that would not only limit parental authority in such cases, but affirmatively require parents to pay for such transitioning. According to the U.K.'s Code for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), abusive conduct now includes withholding money for transitioning and refusing to use their preferred name or pronoun. So a parent with familial or religious objections to the transitioning of a child would be required under the law to fund operations or treatments."
He added:
"To potentially prosecute a parent for refusing to use an adopted pronoun of their child is chilling and wrong.” However, in a statement to Fox News, a CPS spokesperson said, “Domestic abuse is a severe crime and leaves victims with a lasting impact. This assists prosecutors to ensure that any victim, regardless of who they are, can get justice for the abuse they have faced.”
In California, lawmakers adopted AB-957. When first introduced, the bill asked the courts in custody cases, to take into consideration whether or not the child’s parents were “gender affirming.”
However, that was amended and in doing so it upended the very standard for childcare. The changes would make sure that every parent of a child claiming to be transgender affirms that lifestyle.
According to The Daily News Foundation, "California courts would be given complete authority under Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to remove a child from his or her parents’ home if parents disapprove of LGBTQ+ ideology. In essence, a boy could report his parents to his local school’s Gay-Straight Alliance club or other LGBTQ+ organization, who could then report the boy’s parents for child abuse.”
This all came about because the radical woke left decided that they know what the “health, safety, and welfare of a child” consists of, even more so than the child’s parents.
I recently wrote about the case of a young girl that had undergone a double mastectomy at the age of thirteen. She has since detransitioned and filed suit against the doctors and the hospital.
In her case, the first three doctors believed that Jane was too young to receive treatment. Eventually though, she was referred to separate doctors that not only prescribed her puberty blockers and hormones, but within six months they performed a double mastectomy on a 13-year-old girl.
Now the justification for this inexcusable, life altering treatment and surgery was born out of what in my opinion, is nothing less than criminal malpractice. Jane was prescribed puberty blockers and hormones after only one (1) 75-minute session with a psychologist, Susanne Watson. If that isn’t criminal enough, Dr. Winnie Tong, a plastic surgeon decided that after only one (1) thirty-minute session that Jane could have her breasts removed.
Support Canada Free Press
What these doctors did, and this hospital allowed, is the criminal pursuit of a woke ideology and has NOTHING to do with medical science. How can a child, that is too young to purchase cigarettes or alcohol, that cannot legally get a tattoo, or vote be allowed to have this type of surgery? Even with parental consent, which is another criminal act, this type of child mutilation is outrageous.
The lawsuit states:
“Defendants did not question, elicit, or attempt to understand the psychological events that led Kayla to the mistaken belief that she was transgender, nor did they evaluate, appreciate, or treat her multi-faceted presentation of co-morbid symptoms. Instead, Defendants assumed that Kayla, a twelve-year-old emotionally troubled girl, knew best what she needed to improve her mental health and figuratively handed her the prescription pad. There is no other area of medicine where doctors will surgically remove a perfectly healthy body part and intentionally induce a diseased state of the pituitary gland misfunction based simply on the young adolescent patient’s wishes.”
Jane, whose real name is Kayla Lovdahl, has since “detransitioned,” and has resumed her life as a girl. The suit goes on to state that it was a lack of therapy and lack of detailing possible side effects from the surgery illustrates that the doctors never provided Jane with informed consent. Instead they misled her by claiming that the dysphoria would not resolve itself unless she underwent the procedure.
At one point, her parents were actually told, “Would you rather have a live son or a dead daughter?”
Currently she is receiving psychotherapy for social anxiety and other issues. Which is exactly the type of therapy she should have received before these criminal doctors got her in their clutches. In the lawsuit, it points out that there have been a number of studies that demonstrate many youths that experience so called “gender dysphoria,” pass through the “induced confusion” and are once again comfortable with their biological gender.
Other studies have shown that people who underwent chemical or surgical procedures in order to transition experience mental health issues and higher suicide rates. Some countries have restricted the use of puberty blockers and hormones based on a shortage of clinical research for using them on youth wanting to transition.
In an interview with the Epoch Times, Jane said, “Nobody, none of my doctors, tried anything to make me comfortable in my body, or meaningfully pushed back or asked questions; they only affirmed.”
She went on to say that after the surgery, she did not feel better. She complained of nerve damage as well as other problems and is happier since she detransitioned.
Sadly in this case, her parents made the wrong decision after being heavily influenced by leftist physicians. Still, the decision-making power of loving parents cannot be circumvented by woke idealists using our children to push their sadistic agenda.
The left loves power and control. To them the end justifies the means, even if that means leaving the youth of the world as collateral damage.
View Comments
Milt spent thirty years as a sales and operations manager for an international manufacturing company. He is also a four-time published author on a variety of subjects. Now, he spends most of his time researching and writing about conservative politics and liberal folly.