Friday, February 14, 2020

Medical Journal: CPS Should Take Kids From Parents if They Oppose Transgender 'Treatment'

At the tail end of last year, the Journal of Medical Ethics published a paper advocating for government intrusion into the family if parents disagree with their kids about dangerous experimental transgender drugs. Among other things, the paper suggested that Child Protective Services should remove children from their parents if the children identify with the gender opposite their biological sex and the parents do not wish for them to take dangerous experimental "treatments."

According to the abstract, the paper focuses on "how to proceed if a minor and their parents have disagreements concerning their gender-affirming medical care." After studying "ethical, paediatric, adolescent and transgender health research," the authors "discuss three potential avenues for providing gender-affirming care over parental disagreement: legal carve-outs to parental consent, the mature minor doctrine and state intervention for neglect."

The authors — professors and plastic surgeons in New York, Michigan, and Washington State — approach "this parent-child disagreement in a manner that prioritises the developing autonomy of transgender youth in the decision-making process surrounding medically assisted gender affirmation." In other words, the authors assume that if a child consistently insists that he or she is "really" a she or he,  medical professionals should encourage that child to take experimental transgender drugs and be put on a path to surgery, even if the parents want to protect their child from taking this dangerous path.

The experimental drugs are "gender-affirming," so the child's "autonomy" outweighs the parents' rights, even though the child is not legally considered old enough to vote or drink alcohol or be considered responsible for himself or herself.

According to this logic, parents who object to transgender medical experimentation on children who seek to transition are guilty of neglect.

"Neglect, as a medico-legal term, can be used to initiate an evaluation by Child Protective Services and remove a parent as a child’s legal guardian in the most severe instances," the authors write in the full report. Citing pro-transgender literature, the authors claim that experimental medicine lowers depression and other high-risk behaviors among gender-confused young people.

Revealed: The Secretive Strategy Behind the Transgender Assault on Parental Rights
"We conclude that situations where a parent prevents a minor from receiving treatments related to gender dysphoria violate the Harm Principle and justify state intervention," the authors claim.

This position echoes a radical shift in the medical field. The binary nature of biological sex had long been seen as a given, especially after genetics revealed the XX and XY chromosomes that code for female and male, respectively. Yet thanks in part to the influence of billionaires and Big Pharma and the success of the LGBT activist movement, medical professionals have embraced the idea that experimental treatments to affirm a gender identity opposite a person's biological sex are not only healthy but necessary — to prevent these vulnerable people committing suicide.

Yet many doctors have spoken out against these "treatments."

"I call it a development blocker — it’s actually causing a disease," Dr. Michael Laidlaw, an independent private practice endocrinologist in Rocklin, Calif., who consults with Sutter Roseville Medical Center, told PJ Media last year. The disease in question is hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. It occurs when the brain fails to send the right signal to the gonads to make the hormones necessary for development.

While endocrinologists — doctors who specialize in hormones and the endocrine system — are familiar with the disease and gladly treat it when a patient has been diagnosed, many of them are effectively causing their patients to contract the same disease in an attempt to affirm gender identity, Laidlaw said. "An endocrinologist might treat a condition where a female’s testosterone levels are going to be outside the normal range. We’ll treat that and we’re aware of metabolic problems. At the same time, an endocrinologist may be giving high levels of testosterone to a female to 'transition' her."

The effects of cross-sex hormones and so-called "puberty blockers" are far from fully known, but studies suggest people who take these "treatments" increase the risk for cardiovascular disease, deep vein thrombosis, and weaker bone density. Laidlaw has suggested that alterations to children's chemical makeup may also stunt brain development.

These hormones may also leave children sterile, unable to have children of their own when they grow up. Children who start on "puberty blockers" and cross-sex hormones are far more likely to undergo genital surgery, which permanently sterilizes them. Concerns about "chemical castration" are very real.

Yet Dr. Andre Van Mol, a board-certified doctor in Redding, Calif., told The Christian Post's Brandon Showalter that transgender ideologues have taken control of major medical organizations.

"Transgender ideologues now seem firmly in the driver's seat of establishing policy for several of these medical organizations, most notably the ones for pediatricians, psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers," Van Mol said. "It is not based on science or long-term evidence. Many of us see this as a replay of the lobotomy movement of the '50s and '60s. Opposition to it knows no boundaries of politics or faith, and it is gaining momentum."

The case of 7-year-old boy James Younger has drawn national attention to this issue. Younger's mother insists that the boy is really a girl, and is engaged in a custody battle with the boy's father, whom she divorced. The mother claimed she "knew" James is a girl because he liked the movie Frozen and asked for a girl toy at McDonald's. The father claimed that the mother dressed up James in dresses at the tender age of three. The mother wants hormone "treatments" for her son and the father testified in court that she wants to remove the boy's genitals.

Parents who disagree with this approach to transgenderism have already lost custody of their children. In 2018, Christian parents in Ohio lost custody of their 17-year-old daughter for refusing to give her transgender drugs. Child Protective Services has a history of removing children from their parents for no good reason, and this Journal of Medical Ethics article is only making the situation worse.

Parents and citizens need to speak up to make sure that the government does not remove children from their parents for the crime of disagreeing with the new transgender orthodoxy. This is nothing less than terrifying.


NYPD Blasts de Blasio Over War on Cops

An assailant was arrested Sunday in New York City after two separate attacks on police officers that law enforcement dubbed assassination attempts. "He was depressed at times because his son got shot in the street," explained the perpetrator's grandmother. But others blame anti-police rhetoric for motivating the assailant.

"Anyone who spews hatred at our officers is aiding and abetting this kind of atmosphere; it is not acceptable," said Democrat Mayor Bill de Blasio. "You could protest for whatever you believe in, but you cannot vilely attack those who are here to protect us. It creates this kind of dynamic."

We're glad to hear de Blasio say so, but many — including numerous NYPD officers — blame de Blasio himself for falling in with the Democrat war on cops begun by Barack Obama and his ilk. The two officers in New York aren't the first in that city or elsewhere to be attacked or murdered by anti-cop zealots inspired by leftists slandering police as racists.

A union representing New York's police sergeants declared, "Mayor DeBlasio, the members of the NYPD are declaring war on you! We do not respect you, DO NOT visit us in hospitals. You sold the NYPD to the vile creatures, the 1% who hate cops but vote for you. NYPD cops have been assassinated because of you."

Why the blame? De Blasio won office partly on promises to rein in policing in minority communities, and he has followed through with several measures. New Yorkers are starting to notice the resulting rise in crime. Blue lives matter, and until Democrats come around to that point of view, attacks on police will likely continue.


Evangelical Support for Trump Still Baffles Media

It goes without saying that the Democrat Media Complex is no fan of President Donald Trump. As numerous studies have observed, over 90% of the mainstream media's coverage of Trump and his administration has been negative and often aggressively so. In fact, if one were to take the Leftmedia's dubious characterization of Trump as the gospel truth, one would be hard pressed in distinguishing him from Adolf Hitler. Then with this over-the-top negative characterization of Trump, anti-Trumpers bash those who voted for him and support him as either unthinking fan boys or motivated by a sinister, immoral, and selfish ambition.

This straw-man tactic has been regularly applied to evangelical Christians in an attempt to shame them for giving 80% of their votes to Trump. The anti-Trump crowd falsely charges that evangelicals made a Faustian bargain when they voted for Trump and that they have made a mockery of their Christian faith.

What these anti-Trumpers conveniently dismiss or ignore is the reality of the massively divergent worldviews between the country's two largest political parties. Christians are called by Jesus to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. The anti-Trumpers blast Christians for employing that first principle of wisdom in how they voted. The fact of the matter is we are not primarily voting for an individual and his record but rather for the political platform and vision that individual espouses. Does individual character matter? It certainly does, but so does what the individual is proposing for the nation.

In 2016, evangelicals were faced with a difficult decision only because Trump was an individual with well-known moral failures. Yet, as far as Trump's policy platform was concerned, there was little to object to and much to be encouraged by. So, the vast majority of evangelicals chose the candidate whose policy platform aligned most consistently with their own worldview values. And one of the biggest issues in this value system is the right to life.

With the choice presented to evangelical Americans, they were wise as serpents and made the best choice given the options before them. They recognized the implications of electing Hillary Clinton — her advocacy of abortion and ever-increasing government is a road to greater tyranny and loss of Liberty. A vote for Trump was risky, for it was unknown whether he would actually follow through on what he promised, but he has and by so doing has only strengthened his evangelical support. A good argument can be made that Trump, as deeply flawed and broken as he is, has been uniquely used by God to bring blessing to the country. This is what evangelicals were hoping for when casting their votes in 2016 and almost certainly again in 2020, perhaps in even greater numbers.


Australia: Lunacy protects foreigners over us

More racism from the establishment

Chris Merritt

The lunacy at the heart of the latest decision by the High Court comes down to this: this is pure racism built upon an illegitimate exercise of judicial power.

By the narrowest of margins, the nation's highest court haS elevated a racial distinction to a position of constitutional privilege that would never be acceded if such a question were put to the people at a referendum.

Four of the court's seven judg es have preempted the people of this nation by injecting a new racist concept in the Constitution that can only be overturned by referendum or a future High Court.

This shameful ruling has punched a hole in the principle that everyone is equal before Australian law and has eroded the federal government's ability to protect the community from foreign criminals who have never tried to become citizens.

Even when born overseas and holding the citizenship of another country, foreign criminals with Aboriginal ancestry can no longer be treated as aliens for the purposes of migration law.

There will be those who will say the impact can be confined to the specific facts of the case. But a dreadful precedent has been set. In this case, the High Court majority has effectively created a new right for foreigners that comes at the expense of Australians who expect their governments to protect them from criminals, regardless of their race.

The majority has decided that foreign citizens with Aboriginal ancestry have such a special connection with Australia that it would be inconsistent with that special connection to treat them as aliens for the purposes of migration law.

This principle was applied even though the men who brought this challenge never tried to become Australian citizens.

Common sense has gone out the window. The majority has invented a new, illogical category in migration law that applies only to Aborigines who hold foreign citizenship: they can simultaneously be non-citizens and non-aliens.

Because a crucial part of the test for Aboriginality depends on the views of communities or their leaders, this means Aboriginal communities — and not parlia ment — will have the power to determine when the normal migration law will apply.

This was too much for Chief Justice Susan Kiefel, who differed strongly with the majority and pointed out that such a mechanism "would be to attribute to the group the kind of sovereignty which was implicitly rejected by (the Mabo decision)".

Kiefel's dissent goes a long way to limiting the damage to the court's reputation. Four judges went off on a frolic: Geoffrey Nettle, Michelle Gordon, James Edelman and Virginia Bell.  Kiefel was steadfast, backed by Stephen Gageler and Patrick Keane.

The Chief Justice points out in her dissent that it is settled law that it is up to parliament, relying on the Constitution, to create and define the concept of citizenship and determine who is an alien. She also argues that "questions of constitutional interpretation cannot depend on what the court perceives to be a desirable policy regarding the subject of who should be aliens and the desirability of Aboriginal non- citizens continuing to reside in Australia".

"In the absence of a relevant constitutional prohibition or exception, express or implied, it is not a proper function of a court to limit the method of exercise of legislative power," Kiefel wrote.

The great tragedy of this decision is that it will inevitably be used to attack the arguments of those, like this writer, who have argued for a constitutionally entrenched Aboriginal voice to federal parliament.

The judges in the majority are massively out of step with community values and the core principle of equality before the law. They have done a disservice to the legitimate aspirations of indigenous Australians.

From "The Australian" of 12 February, 2020


Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: