Anti-trans Missouri A.G. can now access trans people’s medical records
A judge ordered Planned Parenthood to hand records of transgender care over to Andrew Bailey.
A St. Louis judge has ruled that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is entitled to Planned Parenthood’s transgender care records, ordering the nonprofit to turn over some of its most sensitive files to the man who has built his unelected political career on restricting health care access for trans people.
In his Thursday decision, Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer wrote that Bailey can collect documents under Missouri’s consumer protection statute that aren’t protected under federal mandate, namely the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as HIPAA.
“It is clear from the statute that the Defendant has the broad investigative powers when the consumer is in possible need of protection and there is no dispute in this matter,” wrote Stelzer. “Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to some of the requested documents within his [Civil Investigative Demand].”
Bailey, who last year attempted to implement a ban on gender-affirming care for people of all ages, was quick to celebrate the decision, calling it a “big day” for the state.
Circumcision is mild harm at best but it can arguably be a hygiene benefit. Under your definition of harm, then exercising is harmful also because you have to tear your muscles a bit, but as we both know we are talking about the net benefit.
And maybe you can educate yourself and learn that kids can consent.
Kids can't consent as true consent requires someone to be properly informed of the consequences of the action. Lack of life experience thus prevents true consent by definition. Which is why legally parents make the decisions for them.
The only other time I've heard this nonsense is out of the mouths of pedophiles by the way. If that's not how you identify, or care to be identified, I suggest you educate yourself on consent and seriously question whatever information source you learned this nonsense from.
So then can a child get a face tattoo with the parents consent?
If medically needed, yes, in all 50 states this is legal.
So if the parent and child both claim its medically necessary then its okay?
No, that's the job of doctors. It's the job of parents to consent to the treatment.
What if they were all captured by an ideology that said that for the kid to be happy they have to get a tattoo on their face and if they didnt they would probably commit suicide?
So essentially, your argument that is that the doctors have been captured by a harmful ideology. In that case we still have parents that can choose not to consent to the procedure.
It takes both. But you keep seeming to argue that it should be up to the state to decide what is best for the parent and the child.
In other words, you've been captured by the nanny state ideology. So much for small government hey
Not all doctors are captured by an ideology, but all you need is some of them. I am probably one of the more anti-government normal people you will meet, and I think the one job a government has is to protect people from harm of others.
So lets go back to the tattoo example, if there was an ideology that said face tattoos are normal and perfectly fine, and the parent believes it, and the beliefs of the parents easily transfer to the kid, and they both agree. They find a tattoo artist and doctor that have the same ideology and they agree. Me and you are watching this and seeing this ideology doesnt make sense and that kid will be directly and severely harmed for the rest of their life for getting a face tattoo, what should we do?
Look I'm not going to play a hypothetical game with you. For one because you're creating too many hypotheticals.
By gender affirming care, what we're referring to is not permanent surgery but hormone blockers. You are comparing hormone blockers to face tattoos. You are comparing hormone blockers, a medical procedure, to a cosmetic one, a permanent cosmetic one.
So no, I'm not playing that game.
If we want to talk about gender affirming care rather than facial tattoos we can. For example, if hormone blockers used in a minor lead too long-term damage a doctor would be liable. So the doctor better make damn sure that they're not captured by a harmful ideology and actually doing what is best for the patient. Otherwise they're going to get sued by that child when it becomes an adult.
Anyway, that's the conversation. Not facial tattoos.
They reason you dont "play my game" is becuase it takes you out of the ideological capture and looks at the issue impartially.
Hormone blockers after X period of time do cause permanent change or damage. I dont claim to know exactly what the time period is, but it obviously does. Also there are surgeries happening to minors. The question you have to ask is what is the desistance rate for minors? Not detransition, desistance.
It's not looking at the issue impartially. It's looking at the issue through a distorted lens based on a cosmetic procedure rather than a medical one because you want to prove your own ideology.
As for the rest of your comment, the endocrine society has stated that hormone blockers are safe for transgender youth. They're also used for youth that have precocious puberty, in other words that are going through puberty early.
Hormone blockers have been used in medicine since the 1980s. They've only become an issue now because the right has ideological issues with trans people.
Most of the medical establishment believes that they are safe. The experts believe they are safe. You believe that the experts are wrong and have been captured by a harmful ideology. The majority of them. Not a single misinformed doctor that's agreeing to a face tattoo. Most of the medical establishment agrees this is safe and you believe that they've all been captured by a harmful ideology.
So I find it far more likely that the experts are right and the politicians are pushing an agenda. That the politicians are pushing a harmful ideology. One that you bought into. Most likely because you have prejudice against trans people.
Puberty blockers used for normal testable medical disorders, I agree but that is different than for trans related things. And there are also surgeries on minors happening. Do you actually think if a 13 year old takes homone blockers till they are 18 and then stops their body is not permanently harmed or altered?
The question you have to answer is what is the desistance rate for minors? Not detransition, desistance. For your own ideology that number is super important.